Sitting of 22 June 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BELL'S BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Langpresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Bell's Bridge; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 28 June [Bill 143.]

  ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
  (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Monday 26 June at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 29 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Fire Authorities
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the reduction in services that fire authorities will have to make as a result of expenditure shortfalls. [28397]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Representations have been received from a number of hon. Members and others. My approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Home Secretary aware that, according to figures provided by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, our fire services face a
    460
    funding shortfall of £90 million? The situation is so serious not only in my area of Merseyside but in other parts of the country that at least one authority, North Yorkshire, is considering charging motorists for attending car crashes—the so-called "cash as you crash" plan. When will the Home Secretary finally face up to the serious in-built underfunding of a vital area of our emergency services?
    Mr. Howard: It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to complain about underfunding, but the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury keep telling everyone that the Labour party will not spend any more money. Only one fire authority—South Yorkshire—sought a redetermination of its capping limit, and the application was successful.
    Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is he aware of the grave concern in places such as Filey and Scarborough about the reductions in fire cover that have had to be made because the standard spending assessments for big shire counties such as North Yorkshire are inadequate? May we now have a thorough review of the Home Office fire standard and the standard spending assessments that should go with it so that the big rural areas get the fire cover that they need?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will know that the standard spending assessment formula is being reviewed. Of course we shall take the concerns of North Yorkshire and others into account in that context. However, I see no reason why the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover cannot be maintained throughout the country.
    Mr. Beith: What is the logic of a system under which the Home Secretary tells fire authorities what standard of cover they must maintain but the Department of the Environment then tells them that because of their SSAs or capping they cannot spend the amount necessary to achieve that level of cover? That happened in Northumberland and Shropshire, and it is happening in North Yorkshire. Are not the public, who are thus at greater risk, the sufferers of all that?
    Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the facts. It is the duty of every authority to provide fire cover in accordance with national minimum standards. I have made that clear time and again. Authorities that are not single-service authorities must assess the priorities for their budgets so that cover is provided. If single-service authorities were capped they had the opportunity to make an application for redetermination of the cap. As I have said, only one fire authority made such an application, and that was successful.
    Sir Donald Thompson: May I make a special plea for the fire authority in my constituency, which has unusual topographical and geographical features? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider my plea?
    Mr. Howard: The special features of my hon. Friend's constituency—they are indeed special, and he has drawn them to the attention of every local government Minister for the past 10 years—will be carefully taken into account in the review of the SSA.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a rolling electoral registration system; and if he will make a statement. [28398]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The report of our post-election review concluded that more work was needed before a decision could be taken on a rolling register. Ministers are considering the report.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not the current electoral registration system pathetic? An Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report showed that between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers. People register in October, but the register—which lasts for a full year—does not come out until February and is 16 months out of date by the time it is completed. Does the Minister realise that the annual death rate among over-18s is 630,000, which means that about 800,000 names—some 2 per cent. of the electorate—should not be on the registers? It is disturbing for people to find that the names of their loved ones are still on electoral registers and that they are receiving electoral communications. Would not a rolling register be the answer to the problem?
    Mr. Baker: I should like to take the opportunity to correct some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is not enough information to give a wholly reliable and accurate figure, as the hon. Gentleman found out from correspondence with my office, but according to the best figures available there were 42.624 million names on electoral registers in 1994, compared with an estimated resident population of 44.780 million—a difference of 2.156 million. The working party has looked at a rolling register and while it certainly concluded that it might result in a more up-to-date register, it decided that it would not improve registration. We are considering a detailed analysis of a complex matter, but experience in Australia, which has a rolling register, suggests that house-to-house checks are still necessary. That experience hardly suggests that a rolling register is as accurate as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real scandal of electoral registration was the campaign organised by certain hon. Members to discourage people from registering and to encourage them to become tax dodgers?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is quite right. We spend a great deal of money on advertising the desirability of registering, and I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support for that campaign.
    Mr. Trimble: Does not the issue require more urgent attention? In addition to the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), is there not an increasing problem in certain areas of England with false registration and other forms of electoral fraud? Does not that stem from the fact that registration officers and party workers who are dealing with extended families with similar names have difficulty in identifying who is who? Must not that issue be tackled?
    462
    Could it not be tackled and cured by the adoption of identity cards—an additional reason for such cards that does not appear in the Home Office consultation paper?
    Mr. Baker: We are certainly looking at all the ways of improving registration, although not at the particular example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. According to the OPCS figures to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, the number of people registering to vote in England and Wales rose in 1995 by 88,000 to a total of 38.765 million. I am pleased to say that—no doubt as a result of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy—electoral registration in Derbyshire, North-East rose by 0.5 per cent., more than the national average.

    Prison Searches
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to prevent drugs from entering prisons and to ensure prisoners are properly searched. [28399]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A number of measures are in place to ensure that we take effective action to prevent drugs from entering prisons. These include the greater use of sniffer dogs, closed circuit television in visits areas, the introduction of closed visits for people who are found to be involved in drug taking or handling in prison and the introduction of mandatory testing.
    Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptional case in one of the prisons on the Isle of Wight where a prisoner had drugs secreted up his backside. As the British Medical Association does not allow doctors to perform internal searches of prisoners, he was not able to be arrested and he got the drugs into the prison. Is he further aware that prisoners shuffle their chairs over to the other side of the table during open visits to partake in intimate embraces with their visitors, during which drugs are passed? Why cannot the chairs be nailed to the floor? Why should not closed visits be the norm and open visits be earned as a privilege?
    Can my right hon. Friend explain why Judge Tumim continues to berate routine searching for drugs yet criticises the presence of drugs in prisons?
    Mr. Forsyth: The judge must answer for himself on those matters. My hon. Friend wrote to me in, I think, November about the case that he mentioned in his question. I have been reviewing the policy on internal searches when drugs are believed to be concealed. We shall shortly consult on how we might strengthen the law in that regard.
    My hon. Friend asks about closed visits. I can go some way towards meeting his request in so far as closed visits will apply where prisoners are suspected of taking drugs or where visitors have brought drugs in for prisoners.
    My hon. Friend asked about visiting areas and I agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that visits are not used for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. The Director General of the Prison Service will see that surveillance and the strict enforcement of rules are carried out.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that Judge Tumim has reported that, for example, about 80 per cent.

    463
    of inmates in Styal prison were routinely involved in the taking of illegal drugs? What have been the results so far from the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons? He has already mentioned some ideas, but what further measures will he consider to try to stem this tide of illegal drugs in our prisons?
    Mr. Forsyth: Of course I am aware of the comments about Styal prison. Mandatory testing, which is an important part of the fight against drugs, has been successfully introduced on the basis of a rolling programme. Evidence shows that it is not only identifying drug misuse but that it is welcomed by a number of prisoners who see it as a step forward. Mandatory testing will enable us to identify drug misuse and tackle the sources of drugs. It will also enable us to ensure that proper systems of treatment are in place. Prisoners will be given treatment and support to get them off drugs so that when they leave prison they do not continue to take them, reoffend and find themselves returning to prison.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his latest proposals to stop personal contact between prisoners and visitors in top security prisons and in prisons where drug offences have been suspected? It has been a source of puzzlement to many of us over the past few years why there is not a glass partition between visitors and prisoners sentenced for more serious cases. For some reason there has been reluctance to have such a partition. Will he take on board the fact that most people would like such a restriction to be imposed on prisoners?
    Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, we have introduced closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners as a matter of course. We have said that we shall introduce closed visits where prisoners have been found to be abusing visits and are involved in drug taking or the handling of drugs. I do not think that it would be right to introduce closed visits for all prisoners. Where prisoners are found to be involved in illegal practices, closed visits are justified, but the purpose of prison is to punish the prisoner, not families, and it is appropriate that families should be able to visit prisoners in an open situation—provided the rules are observed.

    Juvenile Offending
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the offending rate and the detection rate of crime by 16-year-old boys and girls currently and 10 years ago. [28401]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): For boys aged 16, the offender rate has fallen from 10,900 per 100,000 in 1984 to 9,300 in 1993. For girls aged 16, it has risen from 1,600 per 100,000 to 2,200 in 1993.
    I am afraid that it is not possible to measure detection rates for different age groups.
    Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on joining the Privy Council and you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate. Monitoring the offending rate for different age groups is as important in respect of general crime as it was in the successful attack on changing the culture of drink driving. If we seriously want
    464
    to reduce the number of victims, we have to stop the flow of 1,000 or 2,000 people a week who, for the first time, commit serious crimes.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He has tremendous knowledge of and experience in dealing with young people through the Church of England Children's Society, where he was a leading expert. He is absolutely correct about the careful monitoring of young offenders and potential young offenders. I want to monitor not only 16-year-olds but those considerably younger who begin to go astray for the first time. We intend to see what measures we can take to keep them on the strait and narrow. If they wander off it, we shall need an appropriate range of penalties rising progressively up the scale.
    Mr. Tipping: The Minister will be aware that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the persistent young offender. What new initiatives will he take to try to resolve that problem?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a tiny number of young people. We shall take the measures that his party has consistently voted against in the past two years. Despite the Labour party voting against the powers to deal with that hard group of young offenders, the powers are on the statute book and we shall introduce them as soon as possible.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be less crime among 16-year-olds if school discipline were more effective? School discipline would be more effective if moderate corporal punishment were restored to the heads and staff of schools as a proper sanction against under-16s who misbehave? Would that not stop many of them appearing before the courts?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend knows that children spend considerably more time under the influence of others rather than school teachers. Their time in the evenings and at weekends in the family home is even more important than the time they spend in school. Of course, teachers have responsibility but I would not put the sole responsibility for bringing up properly educated, well-disciplined children on teachers alone. Others in society have a responsibility: first and foremost, parents.

    Prison Service (Staff Morale)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of staff morale within the prison service. [28402]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: A survey carried out in 1994 showed that two thirds of prison staff were either satisfied or very satisfied with their job.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, as the summer is becoming hot, the same survey showed that nine out of 10 prison staff said that they felt that Prison Service management did not have enough regard for those who have face-to-face dealings with prisoners, which suggests that morale is rather low? Can he give an assurance that if there is any incident later this summer, Ministers will accept their responsibility instead of, as in the past, passing the buck to anyone else down the line?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am slightly astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to link any incident with how

    465
    Ministers should or should not take responsibility. Is he seriously trying to send out a message that if people riot in prisons, it will somehow affect our attitudes? If he is, that would he very irresponsible. Whatever happens in the Prison Service, we will follow the established procedure, which is to establish the facts and hold those responsible to account. If he is concerned about morale in the Prison Service, would not it be better if he and his colleagues gave the service a little credit for the good work that it does every day of the week in looking after 51,000 of the most difficult people in the country?
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of some prison officers' concern about the notice that they have to give prisoners before searching their cells for drugs? Why is that notice needed?
    Mr. Forsyth: There is no requirement for notice to be given, and I share my hon. Friend's consternation when it is. However, it is a matter for governors, who are responsible for the conduct of prisons, and some governors have sometimes given notice. I share with my hon. Friend and, I believe, most hon. Members, a determination to ensure that effective drug searches are carried out in our prisons. We are reviewing the amount of property that prisoners are allowed in their cells so that more effective searches can be carried out—and quickly.

    Criminal Compensation
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in respect of compensation for victims of violent crime. [28403]
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding reductions in compensation to victims of the most violent crimes. [28406]
    Mr. Maclean: We are currently putting through Parliament a Bill that proposes an enhanced tariff scheme. It envisages compensation payable to victims rising from £175 million to £260 million over the next five years. The scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.
    Ms Morris: The Minister's answer bears no relation to reality. The truth is that the Government are cutting compensation to the victims of crime. Does he not understand that he is sending a message to victims of crime that they have a Government who do not care about them, when he should be sending the message that they have a Government who are intent on cracking down on crime and protecting them from violent crime?
    Mr. Maclean: The reality is that, once again, a member of the Labour party is saying that she wants to spend more money, whereas the shadow Chancellor is saying that Labour will not do so. Labour has not spelt out clearly how much it will spend on the victims of crime whereas we have spelt out in the Bill how much we shall spend.
    In 1978, the cost of compensation was £10 million; in 1987, it was £52 million; and last year we spent £165 million on the victims of crime. Over the next few years, we shall increase the amount given to victims of crime to £175 million. We estimate that, in future years, we shall spend £190 million, £205 million, £240 million and £260
    466
    million. We have spelt out the increases; why will not the Opposition spell out clearly what they intend to do? It is just another uncosted manifesto pledge.
    Mr. Winnick: Was not the Leader of the House right when he wrote to warn the Prime Minister in March that the Government's intention to reduce compensation to the victims of serious crime would put the Government on the wrong side of the argument? Is not it typical of the Government that, although crime has risen substantially in the past 16 years—many parts of the country are crime ridden—they are punishing financially the victims of serious crime? It is no wonder that they are held in such contempt across the country.
    Mr. Maclean: Once again, the hon. Gentleman had written his little supplementary question before he heard the figures, but we have come to expect that from him. I read out how much we project will be spent on the victims of crime over the next few years, and it is an unprecedented amount. The Labour party is keen to quote everything European, so why does it not mention the fact that what we alone will spend on the victims of crime will be more than every other country in Europe put together—and more even than the mighty United States of America?
    Mrs. Gorman: Does not Britain have a support system for victims of violent crime—with whom, of course, we all have the greatest sympathy—which includes social services, counselling and medical services to ensure that a victim of crime, even without any form of compensation, has the best care under the welfare state? Is not it important that we avoid the route taken in the United States where the victim of almost anything—from an exploding Coca-Cola can to a real crime—expects to be rewarded financially for the awful things that he has been through?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to mention the United States. The amount of compensation paid to victims of crime in this country is higher than the total paid in the United States, which has a much higher population and a much worse violent crime rate. We have a proud story of success in looking after victims of crime.
    My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that all the other branches and organs of the state provide support. She might have mentioned Victim Support, which has received unprecedented support from the Government as a voluntary organisation, with huge percentage increases each year since it was set up.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another aspect of compensation to victims of crime is the punishment that is given to those who have committed the crime? Has not the Labour party consistently opposed the Government's legislation to increase punishment? Is not the Labour party soft on crime and even softer on punishment?
    Mr. Maclean: I know that the Labour party wants to pretend that it is tough on crime, but we know its track record. We know that it voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, giving the Attorney-General a power to appeal against over-lenient sentences, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the light of that record of voting against every single measure that makes a difference in bearing down on crime, new

    467
    Labour, during the passage of the most recent Criminal Justice Act, was able to abstain on Second Reading and Third Reading.
    Mr. Michael: The public know full well that it is the Conservative Government who have presided over the doubling of crime, and it is the Conservative Government who have voted down every constructive approach by the Opposition to tackle guns, to tackle crime and to nip things in the bud with young offenders. The public know that it is the Government who want to cut the cash for victims, whereas the Opposition have told Ministers, "If you do not cut the cash available for the victims of crime, we will not cut the cash available for the victims of crime." Will the Minister confess that, over the next five years, he will cut the cash for victims of crime by £700 million?
    Mr. Maclean: The whole House enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's outburst—not even his hon. Friends could keep a straight face as he was speaking. The Labour party has voted against every criminal justice measure that we have taken, which has increased the penalties for crime. That is the measure of the hon. Gentleman, who now protests that he cares about crime. We do not need any form of weasel words—"If you don't cut the cash, neither will we". We have put in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill the extra money that we are giving victims. Why will not the Labour party spell out its bottom line? It is because its shadow Chancellor has said, "No costed promises in the manifesto; do not tell the public what it will cost."

    Convicted Prisoners
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the provision and use of telephones by convicted prisoners serving their sentence. [28404]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Official telephones are available for urgent or compassionate reasons only and, as a privilege, prisoners have access to a cardphone.
    Mr. Robathan: May I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate and welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware of the great unhappiness that is caused to the families of victims of crime and, indeed, of murderers such as Winston Silcott and others in Parkhurst, who are allowed to give interviews on the media? Does he agree that the decent people of the country are amazed and appalled to discover that prisoners can telephone the newspapers and the other media? Does he further agree that the use of a telephone is a privilege, which should be earned, and should be taken away when it is abused?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The rules have been changed recently to prevent prisoners from telephoning the media in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The most recent example was prisoner Rose who escaped from Parkhurst prison and then rang up "The World at One" and gave an account of how he had escaped. I was surprised by that incident because the BBC production guidelines make it clear that criminals should not be given an opportunity to glamorise their crimes or to give details of crimes that
    468
    could be copied. It is clearly a matter for the governors of the BBC and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is time that they put their house in order.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It makes a change to listen to prisoners rather than Conservative Members on "The World at One". Can the Minister say how many prisoners have access to mobile telephones? Is it not a fact that a number of prisoners are using mobile phones to order drugs?
    Mr. Forsyth: No prisoner should have access to a mobile telephone, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the measures that have been taken to reduce the amount of property that prisoners can possess and to improve searching for items of that kind. As for prisoners, I should have thought that with the Opposition Front Bench it is the hon. Gentleman who is the prisoner these days.

    Crime
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding recorded crime in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [28405]
    Mr. Howard: I have received a number of representations on recorded crime. Although the level is still far too high, the reduction in the past two years has been the biggest for 40 years and I congratulate the police on their success in that achievement.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that burglary is one of the most distressing crimes. Is he aware that last year the number of burglaries in Surrey fell by 21 per cent? Will he join me in paying tribute not only to the police but also to the often unsung heroes on the crime prevention panels who do so much good in the fight against crime?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for emphasising the importance of crime prevention panels. The truth is that we shall make the greatest progress in the fight against crime when we have a real partnership between the police and the public. The strides that have been made in coping with crime across the country, particularly in Surrey, demonstrate exactly what can be done.
    Mr. Sheerman: How reliable are the crime statistics? Is it not a fact that in most constituencies victims of burglary are so sick of being burgled that they do not even bother to report it? The fact is that crime is spiralling and burglary is spiralling, but people do not bother to report it to the police.
    Mr. Howard: It is a remarkable fact that when recorded crime was rising we did not hear any complaints from Labour Members about the reliability of the figures, but now that it is falling—as a result of effective work by the police—the Opposition are keen to rubbish the figures at any and every opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the figures in his area are reliable, I suggest that he take up the matter with his chief constable.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ways in which the building

    469
    regulations could be changed to ensure that new houses and flats are built in such a way as to be as secure as possible against burglary?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made considerable progress in recent years in incorporating crime prevention features in building design. I dare say that more than be done. As my hon. Friend suggests, I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in 1994 the crime rate was still double what it was when Labour left office in 1979? A key reason for the doubling of crime has been the huge increase in the amount of harassment and intimidation of local communities by anti-social criminal neighbours. In view of that fact, will the Secretary of State recognise the total inadequacy of current provision? Instead of arguing complacently that there is no need for changes in the law of the kind that Labour has proposed, why does he not give our proposals the same wholehearted welcome as they received from the Police Superintendents Association for England and Wales on Tuesday and recognise that our proposals in "The Quiet Life" document tackle the root of the problem of anti-social, criminal activity in neighbourhoods?
    Mr. Howard: Because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the proposals that he announced this week add nothing to those measures which are already part of our law and those which we have announced already. If we take the two together, all that we have is a bit of pretence of precisely the kind that we have come to expect from the Labour party on this and on other matters.
    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that much of the recorded crime in my constituency and other coastal resorts throughout the country is committed by the thugs, louts and yobboes who have been imported into those areas to live in the hundreds of DSS hostels that have sprung up all over the place? Will he ensure that the Government take proper account of that fact in their response to the consultation paper on licensing DSS hostels?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point and a large number of hon. Members will have great sympathy with him. I certainly accept that it should be taken into account in the response to the document to which he referred.

    Victim Support Groups
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further support he will consider giving to local victim support groups. [28407]
    Mr. Maclean: Victim Support receives generous financial support from the Government. We increased our grant to the organisation last year by £1.6 million—from £8.4 million to more than £10 million—a rise of 20 per cent., and we have increased it further this year by another 8 per cent.
    Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work by the victim support group in Lambeth, particularly the pioneering work on trauma counselling and extra security measures for pensioners who have been burgled? Will he look again at the Home Office criteria for funding Victim
    470
    Support nationally so that the new and innovative work by local groups can he funded by Home Office grants and given extra resources?
    Mr. Maclean: I am well aware of the wonderful work by Victim Support around the country and of the various innovative schemes run by enthusiastic volunteers. However, the Home Office does not fund individual schemes: we fund the national organisation, which distributes funding to local groups, and that is as it should be. I would not want to get involved in making hard decisions between individual local schemes but prefer to let the professional national organisation do it. As for the overall resources, I remind the hon. Lady that in the past eight years Victim Support has received additional Government funds of 55 per cent., 43 per cent., 21 per cent., 20 per cent., 28 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and the extra 8 per cent. this year. That is unprecedented financial support for any voluntary organisation.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What are the Government doing to support witnesses? The whole House will appreciate that when it is necessary for witnesses to come forward in order to convict guilty people we need to support those witnesses during the difficult time before and after they give evidence.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. We recognise that many convictions depend on the evidence of witnesses. That is why we are keen to support the Crown court witness schemes that Victim Support is setting up throughout the country and to see whether any further measures need to be taken to deal with intimidation of witnesses. That is why we welcome the measures that the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking in the design and construction of all new courts to ensure that the needs of the victims are given every bit as much importance as those of the criminal.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of Victim Support's work arises from crime associated with hard drugs and that heroin and crack dealing is killing young people in our communities? Nine heroin-associated deaths have already occurred in mid-Glamorgan this year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the police are given the necessary resources and direction to clear our streets of hard drug dealers?
    Mr. Maclean: I am surprised to hear such a question from the Principality, where there has been generous funding of police forces this year. Throughout the whole of England and Wales, our police service has been funded on average by an award of more than 3 per cent. Our police service does an excellent job in tackling drugs, but it is only one of the partners that we want to encourage to do more about drugs. That is why the central drugs co-ordination unit published its strategy for pulling together all sectors of Government to ensure that we concentrate on removing the temptation of drugs from young people in the first place and bearing down hard on those who do it. If the Opposition had supported many of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act that they voted against, perhaps the problem would not be so severe.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Answers are becoming far too long.

    African National Congress Office (Bombing)
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the investigation into the bombing of the London office of the African National Congress in March 1982. [28408]
    Mr. Howard: The Metropolitan Police have reviewed the evidence relating to this bombing in the light of statements by Mr. Craig Williamson and have submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. The more recent comments reportedly made in South Africa by Mr. Mike Leach are also being studied by the police.
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I ask through him that the police interview Mr. Craig Williamson and that extradition proceedings be considered? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Mike Leach, to whom he referred, has alleged that British intelligence had prior notice of this terrorist outrage through the involvement of extreme Ulster loyalist elements? I believe that the inquiry for which I have asked the Prime Minister into the atrocity is essential. Will the Home Secretary further assure me that the Government will treat a terrorist outrage by the South Africans no less fiercely than terrorist outrages and bombings carried out by the IRA?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should know perfectly well that these are matters for the police, and they are being investigated by the police. It might perhaps help if he had a little more confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of our police.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions and answers have been inordinately long today and we have made little progress with Home Office questions. I am extremely disappointed that Members who have questions on the Order Paper have not been called because of long questions and very, very long answers.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28427]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Anderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour's proposals for tough and effective action against criminal and anti-social neighbours have been widely welcomed as a sensible attempt to tackle a problem which causes misery to thousands of people? Given the failure of the Government's policies on law and order, will the Prime Minister now adopt our policies?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady right touches on a problem which concerns many people. As she will
    472
    know, we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour's part.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend today consider Gerry Adams's prediction of the increase in terrorism and Shell Oil's capitulation to terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I think that in whatever form it manifests itself terrorism is unpleasant and should be resisted.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that there are those within the Conservative party who are destabilising the Government and damaging the country?
    The Prime Minister: When we were discussing Question Time I made a prediction—and I am usually right—that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not pick this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an honourable friend in every sense of the word. His letter shows that few men are blessed with better personal friends than he is to me. I am immensely grateful for his continued support. His letter also shows that he is deeply concerned for the Northern Ireland peace process, to which he has contributed a very great deal.
    Mr. Blair: If the questions are occasionally predictable, it is because the targets are also so predictable. It surely comes to something, does it not, when a Cabinet Minister is driven to writing to The Times about divisions in the Government without even telling the Prime Minister? If even Cabinet Ministers decide that the bitter in-fighting is damaging the national interest, will not the people of Britain conclude that the Conservative party is no longer fit to govern the country?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to have noticed today that the former deputy leader of the Labour party had a little bit of bitter in-fighting of his own about the right hon. Gentleman's education policy. I also seem to recall that there was rather more in-fighting. Labour's education spokesman wrote to his colleagues at the end of last year:
    "We are opposed to schools opting out … nor is there any intention that GM status should continue."
    There seems to be some confusion—perhaps a touch of bitter in-fighting.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend remember the massive battles that we had in the House some 15 years ago when we first removed the subsidies from British Steel? Does he also remember the massive opposition from Labour Members when we privatised British Steel? Is it not as a result of privatisation that we are today in a position in which British Steel can turn in £500 million of profits and export a product throughout the world against the toughest competition in the world? Should not Labour Members hang their heads in shame for opposing one of the most important policies for British industry?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall some very rich opposition—not least, as I recall, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—to the proposal to privatise British Steel. The general proposition put forward by the Opposition was that it was totally irrelevant to the future of British Steel, that it was

    473
    produced entirely for ideological reasons and that it would do no good. From an industry which was collapsing, it is now one of the most successful industries in this country and in Europe. That has happened because of privatisation and our determination to ensure that industry is in private hands and efficient.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28428]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that next month is supposed to see the end of six years house arrest for the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Is he further aware that last week her British husband was refused a visa to go there and join in her 50th birthday celebrations? Will the Prime Minister make it unmistakably clear to the military rulers of Burma that trade with this country cannot flourish so long as there is such a basic denial of human and democratic rights?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Most people will have their own very crisp views of the present regime in Burma. It is unacceptable, and so is its behaviour. I warmly commend the right hon. Gentleman's efforts and support for the former Burmese Prime Minister, which is richly merited. Six years' detention is indefensible by any yardstick whatever and an offence against her human rights. We have made that crystal clear to the Burmese and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28429]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under a Conservative Government parents have been given the right to choose where to educate their children? Will he therefore congratulate all those parents in the Labour party who have been courageous enough to choose grant-maintained or selective schools even though Labour's bogus education policy would destroy them?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I support the right of every parent in the country to choose the appropriate school for their child. I just wish that some of those who exercise the choice themselves would ensure that it remains equally free for every other parent in the land. The proposals that the Labour party produced today are very badly named—"Hypocrisy and Mediocrity" should have been the title of its plans.
    Dr. Godman: On the subject of Brent Spar, there is a good deal of speculation in Scotland concerning its eventual destination and it has been suggested that it is likely to end up on the lower Clyde. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that all safety regulations will be adhered to during its dismantling?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me say that I deeply regret Shell's decision to cave in to misguided pressure
    474
    from environmental groups and some foreign Governments. The plan for deep-sea disposal was ratified and agreed according to all the international obligations agreed with other Governments, and not a single Government objected to the plan until they succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace. I shall make it clear to my colleagues across Europe that there will almost undoubtedly be a price to pay for their weakness in this respect.
    As for the subsequent disposal of Brent Spar, I have no means of knowing at present how that will eventually work out. If Shell seeks approval for onshore disposal, we shall naturally consider that request, but we are certainly not under an obligation to grant approval for a new abandonment plan. Shell will need to satisfy us on those issues which led us previously to the conclusion that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. I think that, for the moment, that is where we should leave it.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28430]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to send a message of congratulation to all who, despite threats and intimidation, battled to expose the systematic abuse of power in Labour Monklands? Does he agree that now is the time for all those who have further information about what went on there—for instance, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—to present that information, or are they worried about what we shall see of the tip of this very nasty Labour iceberg?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, on the basis of the Black report, a remarkable number of relatives of Monklands councillors seem to have been employed by the council. Its personnel department was more like a family planning department.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28431]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister welcome the new right-wing Government in France and the decision of his new friend President Chirac to raise the minimum wage substantially?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that it is of course a mistake there, as it would be anywhere else.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28432]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend as the finest interpreters at Government communications headquarters to try to make sense of the contradictory gobbledegook contained in the document misleadingly entitled,

    475
    "Diversity and Excellence: a new partnership for schools"? Is it not likely that beneath the honeyed words they will find the usual socialist disdain for schools which have managed to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of local education authorities?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very unusual document in many ways. The Labour leadership has opposed each and every education reform in recent years. It was against tests, performance tables and grant-maintained schools—not just in the distant past, but recently. Only last week, Labour's spokesman on Wales declared his opposition to grant-maintained schools. Last week it was Labour councillors penalising parents whose children are at grammar schools; today it is Lib-Lab Lincoln attacking children who win scholarships. No matter where we look, the reality is that Labour is opposed to choice, except in what it says; in what it does, there is to be no choice for anyone—except, of course, Labour Members themselves.
    Mr. Salmond: Instead of the foot-stamping petulance with which, we read, the Prime Minister has greeted his humiliation over Brent Spar, will he open his mind to a constructive suggestion? As both the Government and the oil companies have a huge financial interest in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore decommissioning, and as no one trusts either the Government or the oil companies, would it not be better to have an independent authority overseeing decommissioning of oil and gas installations? I know that the Prime Minister is somewhat embarrassed by independent inquiries, but would that not be a constructive way forward?
    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure whether the people of Scotland will draw the conclusion that I draw—that the Scottish National party would really like the Brent Spar to be disposed of on land in Scotland at the expense of British and Scottish taxpayers. If that is the message, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to every household that he has deceived at recent elections.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28433]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in London and that since then it has become oversubscribed? Does he welcome the fact that the slow learners on the Opposition Benches have suddenly realised that grant-maintained schools are successful and popular with parents?
    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, but I am afraid that time after time Labour's leaders have voted against grant-maintained schools, Labour activists have voted campaigns against grant-maintained schools, and I doubt whether anyone will be gullible enough to believe that they can be trusted. I clearly recall the Labour education spokesman writing to his colleagues at the end of last year saying:
    "We are opposed to schools opting out".
    Frankly, they could have saved a lot of paper and a lot of hot air if they had just said that in their recent document.

Agriculture Council
3.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers which started on Monday and finished after an all-night sitting at 9.20 this morning.
First, I am delighted to announce that agreement was reached for the first time on a comprehensive framework of law covering the welfare of animals transported throughout the European Community. Community rules have been set for the first time on the length of time for which animals can be transported and when journeys must be broken for food, water and rest. There will be maximum limits on travel time for all journeys and, most important of all, a clear definition of a journey's end. Animals will have to be held in one place for at least 24 hours to recover before they can be moved again.
If animals are to he transported for more than eight hours, vehicles will have to provide specified equipment such as proper ventilation and temperature control. For vehicles that do not meet those standards, eight hours will be the maximum travel time. There will also be specific rules on the space allowance that animals must be given in the different types of transport.
For the first time, therefore, we have a proper framework of rules, but equally important—or perhaps even more important—there are now European-wide powers to enforce the rules. Hauliers will have to be licensed and, if they fail to observe the rules, licences will be removed. In addition, those engaged in the trade will have to be properly trained. Journey plans will be needed for all substantial journeys across borders. The European Commission will have the role of ensuring that member states are applying the rules correctly and its veterinary inspectorate will be strengthened so that it can do so.
The chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who was present throughout the long negotiations, gave me permission to quote his views:
"A great step forward. Not the end of the road but a good beginning".
I agree with him. The agreement represents a huge advance over what has previously been on offer, let alone over the position as it exists now. For those reasons I had no hesitation in voting for the measures. We have established journey limits and journey times; agreed a rigorous system of enforcement; and given a spur to higher standards of treatment and equipment to the livestock haulage industry. We also have an agreement to review the directive in three years' time. The Government will, of course, want further improvements then.
I should like to pay tribute to my officials, in particular the chief veterinary officer, and those in the Commission and elsewhere with whom we worked most closely on the way to this breakthrough.
On other matters, I am glad to report that the Council at last agreed our proposal that arable land taken out of production for forestry or environmental purposes can count against the set-aside obligation of the farmer concerned. This is something for which I have long been pressing, with the full support of environmental and farming organisations. It should boost farmers' participation in forestry and environmental schemes.
478
As regards the 1995 price fixing, the Council decided to maintain almost all support prices and aid rates unchanged for 1995–96. There will be some reductions in seasonal price increments for cereals and sugar storage payments, which will result in some modest cuts in expenditure.
Overall, this is a wasted opportunity. The proposals originally made by the Commission would have been a bit better. However, the Commission, in the face of pressure from other member states, amended those during the negotiations. I made it clear throughout that there would be no question of increasing the existing ceiling on common agricultural policy expenditure. Some useful items were agreed as part of the deal. For example, the Council agreed on changes to the support system for cotton aimed at stopping the sharp increases in expenditure seen in recent years.
In addition, the Commission undertook to make a proposal, before 31 July, on the rate of set-aside for arable crops sown for harvest next year. This will he an improvement on last year's timetable, when the proposal came too late. At my insistence, the Commission promised to take full account of the interests of users of cereals, particularly pig and poultry producers, who are having to pay too much.
On the so-called green currencies and the agri-monetary system, the Council agreed to changes in the ridiculously expensive and inflationary system which I voted against last December. What was agreed today was an improvement in budgetary terms. However, I still voted against it. First, I am opposed to distorting the system so as to pay farmers in some countries more than is justified by the market rate for the national currency concerned. Secondly, any arrangements must be time-limited. It was proposed to link these arrangements to the date of the introduction of a single currency. In my opinion that might well mean no time limit at all, and I could not agree to it.
This was an enormously complex and important Council. Overall the United Kingdom can be well satisfied with the outcome.
Mr. Elliot Morley: We welcome the fact that there has been some progress towards a European-wide structure for animal welfare and journey times. We particularly welcome the fact that the Council of Ministers has accepted proposals, for which the Opposition have been arguing for some time, to have a licence scheme so that exporters who break the law constantly can have the licence withdrawn and be removed from the trade. Despite our welcome for that progress, we are disappointed that in many cases the maximum time for European journeys has been increased compared with the standards laid down in our law.
I wonder whether the Minister can give us some detail about the standards that will obtain in the new vehicles that can exceed the new eight-hour limit. Does it mean that many vehicles can simply be upgraded? Will the vehicles really be of a higher standard than they are now?
Is not it true that live exports export not only the misery of the animals but jobs from this country? Should we not be concentrating within the European Commission on trying to maximise our carcase trade and the potential of our meat trade rather than exporting animals?
We are also concerned about the fact that the new proposal will not be reviewed for a further three years. That is not acceptable. The Minister should accept that

479
the agreement that he has achieved in Europe is only his first step on a very long path that must be travelled before he improves the position and before the standard of welfare meets the quite legitimate concerns of people who have been protesting about it at ports in Britain.
We welcome the changes—as does the Minister—to set-aside regulations, which will allow the planting of trees and count against set-aside in conservation practices. We very much hope that the Minister will continue to press for reform of the CAP. It is certainly too expensive. It is far more constructive to move towards environmental support and away from the wastage that we have seen so often in the past.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is not too controversial to say that we all want fundamental reform of the CAP. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I am grateful for his welcome—it was a little grudging, but it was a welcome. The licensing scheme is the key to the whole matter. The Labour party was arguing only a few weeks ago that we should introduce a licensing scheme on a national basis because it did not believe that we could get one in Europe. A national scheme would have been useless. The licensing scheme on which we have agreed will enable us to take licences away from foreign hauliers if they break the rules when they come here. That is what matters.
There is a fundamental misconception in one point made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I am surprised because he is learned about such matters and has a long record of concern about them. There is no journey limit in our present legislation, although I have heard Compassion in World Farming saying that. There is a rule that animals are supposed to be fed and watered after 15 hours. That is not what I call a journey limit because hauliers can continue for another 15 hours and another 15 hours, and so on. For the first time—and this is the key—we have a proper break, which is based on the advice of vets that after 24 hours the state and stress levels of the animal are the same as they were before it was moved.
Of course we must maximise the carcase trade. We have been taking practical steps. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been in the lead on that. Already, 80 per cent. of the trade is in carcase form, but animals will always be moved across our borders as they always have been. British farmers cannot be put at the disadvantage of being the only farmers in Europe who cannot move animals across their borders.
I am grateful for the somewhat grudging welcome of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. The agreement is in fact a major step forward, as all those who have been engaged in the negotiations for more than two and half years—before my time in office—will realise. There is now a framework of law on which to build for the future. That is a complete revolution.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Agriculture studied the transport of live animals some three years ago. While I acknowledge that the details of its recommendations and his agreement are not precisely the same, does he accept that the philosophy of what he has agreed is in line with the recommendations, which were agreed unanimously by an all-party Committee? Does he also accept that the
480
agreement is a prime example of how we can lead the way in Europe? As far as I am concerned, this is a red-letter day for farm animal welfare.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture is quite right. I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work, which was very important in helping to build a consensus among responsible farmers and responsible people in the welfare organisations who wanted real progress. I have to say that the only people for whom I have had rather little time in the past few weeks were those whose insistence on a maximalist position played into the hands—as they always do in such circumstances—of those who wanted no change at all. I got the feeling finally that some of them would have been happier with no agreement at all so that they could have said that no progress was being made.
It was our duty to make a real step forward. I pay tribute to, for example, those in the RSPCA who have helped us and have said that this agreement marks real progress—it does and, in retrospect, it will be seen as a watershed in the subject.
Mrs. Ray Michie: May I too welcome the Minister's statement as a step in the right direction? I certainly hope that it will lead to further agreement on Europe-wide animal welfare. Agreements on transport may have significant consequences for farmers in Scotland, especially for the island farmers in my constituency and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The Minister rightly congratulated his officials. Which Scottish Office Minister was with him during the talks and how many officials from the Agricultural Department at the Scottish Office were there to advise him?
What is meant by a sea journey, considering that a journey from Shetland to Aberdeen takes 18 hours? There seems to be a question about animals taken in floats and animals taken on the hoof. Are one lot considered to be resting and the others not? Who will bear the cost of the extra lairage and the upgrading of the lorries, bearing in mind the fact that my island farmers already bear high ferry costs? If extra costs are put on them, it will make life difficult.
Mr. Waldegrave: I had the position of the highlands and islands, and of Orkney and Shetland above all, very much in mind. I was accompanied throughout by a senior official from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. The rules on sea transport are quite complex. As is common sense, it makes a difference if the animal is in a roll on/roll off lorry; that must count as part of a lorry journey. If the animal is in a pen and is being fed and watered, the time need not count towards the journey time. There is also a power in the directive to deal with the exceptional difficulties of very remote places which may, in certain circumstances, have to be triggered carefully.
I believe that it is right that the livestock hauliers should carry the costs; I make no bones about that. The agreement will raise costs for the livestock hauliers. I believe that, on balance, the House, and farmers, will think that that is right. In some places, the industry may be under pressure from costs; that matter is probably best addressed through objective I and objective 5b grants and things of that kind, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be much better able than I to deploy in the hon. Lady's part of the world.
Mr. Tom King: Is it not clear that what the interests of agriculture and of animal welfare required was a comprehensive European agreement—and an early one? May I congratulate, in a totally ungrudging way, my right hon. Friend? We are at the end of the French presidency. If the matter had gone into other presidencies, it could have lingered for a long time. My right hon. Friend is entitled to the fullest and totally ungrudging support of the whole House and of all those who have an interest in the subject.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows about these matters in real detail. He is perfectly right to say that we had to get a deal under the French presidency. I do not believe that the Spanish, the Italians and the Irish would have been able to put such an agreement through. There was a moment when we could get a proper agreement and we got it. It was not always in the bag and it would have been perfectly possible for there to have been no agreement. It might well then have been beyond the end of the century before we got a proper legal framework. On this agreement, we can build for the future, although the House should not make the mistake of thinking that it is all about building for the future. This deal will put an end now, as Mr. Kirkby of the RSPCA said on the radio this morning, to the 40-hour and 60-hour journeys which we know scandalously take place across Europe at present. It will bring in the licensing system to enable us really to get rid of the cowboys, and it will involve training and higher-standard lorries. The start date for the directive is 1996 and the start date for the provisions affecting lorries is 1997 because people will have to equip themselves properly. The agreement will be the beginning of a completely new world in this aspect of animal welfare.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: May I too ask about the Scottish island communities? Does the Minister appreciate that the live transport trade there is different from that elsewhere? It is an essential trade for Scottish island communities; it is not an optional trade. The animals have to be got to the mainland so that they can be finished for subsequent marketing. There should be no real complaint from welfare bodies about live transport from the Scottish island communities. Will the Minister, therefore, ask his friends in the Scottish Office to write to those of us who represent the island communities, spelling out in detail the implications of the agreement and, in particular, the provisions for exceptional circumstances?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion and I will pass it on to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. There will now be much complex implementation to do and those most closely concerned with the island communities should be involved. I am very familiar with the western isles and the transport problems. Indeed, I well remember the time when the Locheil ran on to the rocks in west Loch Tarbert and all the sheep escaped to the hills. They were in good shape when they did so.
Mr. Michael Stephen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous efforts that he has made in Europe on behalf of animal welfare. Is this not a victory for those of us who believe in making progress through the democratic process rather than by lawbreaking, smashing people's property and obstructing
482
the highway? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not relax his efforts but will continue to work on behalf of animal welfare to secure proper treatment for the calves that are exported to veal crates.
Mr. Waldegrave: To widen the debate for a moment, I believe that my hon. Friend is right. This was an important test of the democratic process, and it was certainly an important test of European decision-making powers that we should be able to make real progress on that issue. That we have done so may show some of my hon. Friends that it is possible to seek and win practical European agreements in which we are the demander and have to push other countries. In response to my hon. Friend's second important point, I emphasise the fact that we have further work to do this year, and yesterday's agreement gives me good hope that we shall be successful and that veal crates will be banned. We await the report of the Community's veterinary committee, which I have every hope will say that veal crates should be banned. On the basis of the kind of coalition that worked last night, I hope that we shall achieve that ban this year.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister is of course to be congratulated on his statement. The vehicles will now have to be converted, so can he tell us how long a transitional period will be allowed before the conversion must be completed? My second question is about licences for transport hauliers within the United Kingdom operating in an area close to an international border. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the licenses will not be allocated on a national basis, which would discriminate against hauliers based near an international border? Thirdly, although we understand the problems of the islands of Scotland, may I remind the Minister that in another part of the United Kingdom there is an even longer sea crossing? I hope that he will hear that problem in mind as the details are worked out. Otherwise there could be a burden on farmers in Northern Ireland. Finally, I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about forestry.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I had the special circumstances of Northern Ireland much in mind, having visited and talked to farmers there recently, In particular, we have said that the journey plans, which will inevitably involve a certain amount of necessary bureaucracy, should not be involved unless the journey is both eight hours long and crosses a border. One will not have to go through the whole rigmarole for short journeys across borders, and I believe that that is sensible. There will be no question of handing out the licences on a limited basis; anyone who is properly trained and has the proper equipment will get a licence. The start date for the directive is next year, and for the lorries the year after. I wanted the process to be a little quicker, but on balance it is probably fair to give people time to make the investment.
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the great work that he has done this week for British agriculture and for animal welfare. Can he tell the House what he thinks should now happen with the various protests that still take place at farm gates and ports? Does he agree that those who had a genuine concern about animal welfare should be satisfied that their voices have been heard and acted upon? But, sadly, some people will never be satisfied

483
because they wish to destroy the livestock industry. Should there not now be an end to all those demonstrations?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is a free country and people must demonstrate if they wish to. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many disparate groups among the demonstrators, and clearly some of them are demonstrating not against the export or movement of animals but against the livestock industry and the eating of meat. There is nothing that I can do to satisfy those people, because we are not about to ban the eating of meat. Another group—I regard it as much the largest group, because that was the burden of the many thousands of letters and the printed post cards that we received—was not worried about the movement of animals in this country, but asked, "How can we be sure that there are any standards of enforcement once the animals have been moved abroad?" We have been fighting to answer those legitimate anxieties, and it is a major step that we now have a proper framework of European law enforcement to meet those concerns.
Mr. Harry Cohen: This is a victory for the animal rights protesters but only a partial one, because there will still be a lot of cruelty to animals under this scheme. May I ask the Minister about the agreement in respect of inspections? Will he restore the inspections at British ports which the present Government removed? What about inspections in those countries which do not give a jot about animal welfare? Under this agreement, will they not be inspecting themselves? What use is that?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is wonderful to hear the authentic voice of the Labour party's views on internationalism. Talk of the Socialist International is clearly dead—they are all foreigners with no standards at all nowadays. We now have proper inspections and checks before the journey plans are agreed. We set up that scheme under our local initiative, but—as I always made plain—it was far too weak and was bound to be full of loopholes. Now we have proper journey plans which are inspected across Europe as a whole.
The Commission is being strengthened and, while it is not often that we argue for additional resources for the Commission, we did so in this instance to fund the policing of the scheme and to ensure that local authorities in this country and in most parts of Europe do their job in inspecting the framework of rules.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a fair balance between the need on the one hand to protect animals—especially young animals—while in transit and the need on the other hand to ensure that our agriculture industry is not burdened unnecessarily or made uncompetitive? Is my right hon. Friend encouraged that bodies as diverse as the Farmers Union of Wales and the RSPCA have welcomed the agreement?
Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the broad coalition that has taken this work forward. I am not a bit surprised that some of the maximalists on one side have joined with the minimalists on the other side to say that no progress would have been much better. That has been the experience of almost anybody who has tried to make any practical reform of anything since the beginning of time. While I believe that the agreement gives a reasonable
484
balance, I am not disguising from the farming and livestock industries that there will be higher costs. I believe that the industries can pay those costs, and they will have to pay them. It is the responsibility of the industries to accept proper standards, as the huge majority of British farmers are willing to do. The few who are taking the other view are unwise to do so.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Minister accept that while this is a welcome first step forward, there is a great deal further to go as regards the treatment of farm animals not only abroad, but at home? Many people in this country—of whom I am one—can no longer bring themselves to eat meat because they cannot justify the way in which farm animals are treated. Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the meat industry that—as the number of people who no longer eat meat is growing—it is in its interests to deal not only with this issue but others such as the welfare of calves exported to veal crates, as was mentioned a moment ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)?
Mr. Waldegrave: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, he has not given up meat for absolute reasons, but because he thinks that the treatment of animals is not right. I think that he goes too far. The majority of our people accept that the standards on British farms are very high. I was brought up among farmers, and I believe that to be true. There are occasional lapses, and therefore there are occasional prosecutions, fines and even gaolings. The Community's achievement last night enables us to spread those standards from here and from other countries in northern Europe—there are other countries in northern Europe which have high standards—right across the Community, and that surely is the real prize.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement represents a step change in the treatment of animals which are being exported? Is it not a tribute to him and to the Government for their persistence in Europe? Is not it also a tribute to British agriculture, whose ideas have been recognised yet again in Europe as leading the way in animal welfare?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is fair. I mentioned the chief veterinary officer in my statement because the reputation and standards of our veterinary profession have been helpful. When British veterinarians say that something should be done, their professional colleagues abroad tend to listen to them, and that is a great strength to us. This is a major step. I am the last person to say that it gets rid of all the problems, but we must take one step at a time, and this is a very big step. As Mr. Kirkby of the RSPCA said, it is not the end of the road, but it is the beginning of the road. Before this we were not on the road at all.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister mentioned two votes that he had exercised. One was in support of animal welfare provision and the other opposed a budgetary measure. He mentioned other issues, such as the cotton regime. How many decisions were made at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and how was the Minister's vote exercised in each case? It is supposed to be agreed that such information is supplied

485
to the House when statements are made, although such statements are normally written and it might be easier for that information to be produced in that form.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is a perfectly fair question. Perhaps the best thing would be for me to write to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench spokesman will table a question on that subject. It was a complex package of deals and there were a number of separate decisions. As I have not been to bed for a long time, I am not certain that I would remember every item of every package.
One matter of considerable importance, which for some reason makes people laugh, is that the British knacker industry—I am glad to note that no one laughed—faced a directive that would have caused it severe problems. The directive related to additional investment, but there was permission to continue for only two years after the investment had been made. I got that changed for that industry, which is necessary in many rural areas and particularly in some of the more remote areas. It is now secure.
Mr. Roger Gale: As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, I have to accept that those who honourably pursue a vegan agenda, together with others who less honourably use such causes only for fund-raising purposes, will not find my right hon. Friend's achievements acceptable. I share the RSPCA's view that this is a major step. Will my right hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who has worked so hard around Europe to take a lead in Europe, move forward by regarding this as a first step and seek to secure, ultimately, a ban on the transport of meat on the hoof, and most certainly the ending of the use of veal crates throughout the European Community? We have proved that we can achieve much: we can achieve much more.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who spent much time travelling in Europe and persuading some of our more recalcitrant colleagues to take this subject more seriously. If we get a veal crate ban in due course, and I hope we will, it will be largely due to her work. I will not commit myself to a ban on meat on the hoof. It would not be right for British agriculture to be the only one in Europe that could not export live animals across borders. In Northern Ireland, for example, that would be absurd. That is not a sensible objective, but it is sensible to export as much in meat form as possible. We are taking steps such as marketing grants and publicity, and adopting various other measures to try to build up that trade even further. We should not get ourselves yet again into the position of shackling British farming, as has happened in the House in the past, with the result that there are more imports of animals, which were probably brought up with much lower welfare standards than ours. That is what happened over pigs.
Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that the Minister has lost much sleep recently for more than one reason. I can give him only two out of 10 for this agreement. Calves will still face 11-hour journeys, cattle and sheep will face anything up to 33 hours and pigs will
486
face 26 hours. Irrespective of what Conservative Members say, the good people at Brightlingsea, Dover, Shoreham and Coventry will continue to protest because large numbers of people in this country will never rest until we have banned the export of animals for slaughter.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman misses the fact that there were no journey limits of any kind in European legislation before. We now have them. I would agree that some of the journey times are too long, but we now have a structure and over the years, we will work to get them down. The real achievement is to get the concept of journey limits into law.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his feelings, but if he would just occasionally disagree with the most populist movements, his ideas might carry even more weight.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agreement and his achievement in getting it will be warmly welcomed by the people of Sussex and especially by the people of Hove, where the entrance to Shoreham harbour is located and where most of the demonstrations took place? Many of the people of Hove have taken part in peaceful demonstrations, which I entirely support, but they have all suffered from the demonstrations.
Would my right hon. Friend have been able to achieve this breakthrough if we had unilaterally backed away from existing European rules, imposed bans of our own and ignored the negotiating table?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am absolutely certain that if we had followed the advice which came intermittently from the Opposition Front Bench and regularly from some on the Opposition Back Benches and pursued the route of gesture politics—which would have led us straight to the European courts—we would not have got the agreement. There would have been no incentive whatsoever for anyone to negotiate with us and we would have become engaged in interminable court cases, first in our courts and then in the courts in Europe. That would have delayed everything.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on what has been achieved. I was particularly interested in the comment that, at his insistence, the Commission undertook to look at the needs of people who require to use large volumes of cereals, namely pig and poultry producers. The intensive pig and poultry industry in Northern Ireland has been virtually wiped out. Is there any hope in what lies behind his statement that we in Northern Ireland might benefit from intervention store grain at a cheaper rate?
Mr. Waldegrave: That was certainly the intention of what I was arguing. This is in the context of the decision on probable further cuts in set-aside. There is a division in the Community about the purpose of cuts in set-aside. The French think it is a matter only of keeping up subsidised exports. That seems crazy to us. The purpose of cuts in set-aside should be to release more feed grain into the internal market where the hard-pressed poultry and pig people are struggling with prices that are making their businesses very difficult. I got the Commission to agree that that must be a consideration in its handling of the proposals that it will bring forward on set-aside and also on its handling of market management measures as to how it should release such grain.

487
We voted against releasing grain to Spain. I know that there is a serious drought in Spain, but there are other ways of helping them. That grain should have been released into the market of the Community to bring the price down.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: When will we hear an announcement that the Community is no longer going to spend £700 million a year on tobacco subsidies and that the money has been switched to something more useful?
On the main issue of meat, I join in the welcome for the agreement on food and farm animal welfare. Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage people to try to specify near-farm slaughter for meat and if, for intervention purposes, we go in for meat mountains, will he try to ensure that welfare considerations are taken into account?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, it is going to be a long time and a long battle before we persuade the Community to stop subsidising tobacco. Whenever the matter comes up, the British protest against it. We now have one or two allies—I suspect that the Swedes will help us, as on many other items. I do not want to be too optimistic, but I share my hon. Friend's objective whole-heartedly. It is crazy that the Community should go about trying to limit rules on advertising while at the same time subsiding the production of the product.
On the second point, I remind my hon. Friend that there is no intervention buying of beef at the moment. I am not sure that the Intervention Board has the power to do what he wants. It may simply have to exercise its market powers. I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be admired not only in the farming community but elsewhere, and not only for his achievement of the past 24 hours but for standing firm for many months against those who sought not only to demonstrate but to obstruct the highway to legitimate passage. In respect of the financial aspects of his recent discussions, will he assure the House that his determination to retain but reform the common agricultural policy is not abated?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance very easily. The engines that will cause the true reform of the CAP are the GATT agreements and the extension of the Community to the east in due course. We firmly believe that it would be wise for the Agriculture Council—although this is a slightly hopeful remark—to take steps in advance to show the inevitable and correct direction that we shall follow towards the market.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. The agreement proves that my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Education, was entirely right to block the deal last year because the deal that we achieved this year is much better. She was told that last year's deal was the best on offer, but she was right to judge that, if we stuck it out, we would get more—and we have.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: While many people in Brightlingsea in my constituency are opposed to the live export trade in any circumstances, the vast majority of reasonable people in my constituency will welcome the agreement as progress towards better animal welfare standards in the European Union. However, will my right hon. Friend clarify the enforcement arrangements? Will he confirm that they really do mean
488
that we can withdraw licences from any operator operating out of the United Kingdom who breaches the rules, whether that operator is British, a foreign operator from another member state or, indeed, a foreign-owned operator from outside the European Union?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that his analysis of people's reactions is absolutely right. The issue of enforcement was one of the major points that we won. I insisted on having the power to be able to take licences away from foreign hauliers. I was thinking of other European, Community-based hauliers, but I shall check whether we have the power to take away the licences of hauliers from outside the Community, although I doubt whether any come to this country at the moment. A key point for which I argued was that we must be able to take licences away from German, Dutch, Italian or other hauliers because they come here in considerable numbers.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that today's agreement and announcement should result in more animal welfare jobs in my constituency as a result of the probable increased use of lairage facilities? Will he also confirm that the best way to export live animals humanely is by the short sea route from the port of Dover and that today's agreement means that demonstrators should leave the port of Dover alone because we have secured a major achievement in terms of animal welfare?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is good news for my hon. Friend's constituency because, although there are other perfectly respectable ways to export animals, it is sensible to use the short routes and modern ports such as Dover which have proper lairage facilities. I can therefore support my hon. Friend in his typical and redoubtable attempt to boost his constituency.
Mr. Gary Streeter: My right hon. Friend will recall from a speech that I made in a recent Adjournment debate that animal transportation was a heated issue in the west country. Is he aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed not only by farmers in Devon and Cornwall but by the citizens of Plymouth? Will he reassure my constituents that enforcement in member states such as Germany, Spain, Italy and Greece will be just as zealous as it will no doubt be in this country?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), and I are in pretty close touch with west country opinion. Enforcement was one of the big items missing in the deal offered to my predecessor last year under the Greek presidency. The Community has now agreed that every country should produce an annual report on how it is enforcing the measures. There will be a strengthening of the Commission's inspectorate and it will be its duty to check that national authorities are doing their job. It will no doubt be a hard battle to ensure proper enforcement everywhere but we have at last got the proper framework for doing so.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I tell my right hon. Friend that one of my abiding memories is of seeing a load of horses unloaded after two days and two nights' travel without rest, without water or food—much, anyway—and without exercise and then given a good beating? I welcome his statement today, because I hope that such long journeys will be a thing of the past. May I

489
have his assurance that there will be proper inspection when journeys end, and that there will always be such an inspection, or at least the threat of one?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm what I have already said about enforcement to my hon. Friend. Of course nothing in the agreement upsets the special arrangements that prevent the export of horses from this country.
Dr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was right to remind the House that the Labour party has consistently advocated a licensing scheme for livestock hauliers? Does he accept that any benefits from the agreement will largely be determined by how effectively those licensing schemes are implemented in this country and other member states?
Does the Minister also accept that the vast majority of the examples of animal cruelty that have worried the British people, and which have sometimes appeared on our television screens, have concerned the long distances that animals are transported to slaughter on the continent?
In that regard, the agreement fails to tackle the major issues. Animals will continue to be transported for as many as 29 hours with only a one-hour break for watering before slaughter; after 24 hours, it will be possible for them to start their journey all over again; and, in the case of even young animals such as calves, it will be allowable to transport them for 19 hours with only one hour's watering.
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in relation to that crucial aspect—the very long journeys to slaughterhouses on the continent—the agreement is a disappointment? If it is the case that Agriculture Ministers decided last night that the agreement will not be reviewed for at least three years, does that not make it all the more essential that we ensure that the licensing systems are operated effectively, and that we make fast progress on a range of other aspects of animal welfare, including the continental ban on veal crates?
Mr. Waldegrave: It would be ridiculous to have a review of a new directive in less than three years. It will take at least three years to gain experience that will be worth reviewing. That is a perfectly sensible time limit.
When the hon. Gentleman was arguing that we should introduce national measures on licensing and so on, he did so, firmly telling the House that we would never get the agreement that we have got today. We have got the agreement that we have today. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted himself for the re-establishment of the live animal trade in 1975, when the standards were far lower than those that I have agreed today.

Business of the House
4.17 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health Authorities Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Jobseekers Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 27 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Environment Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Environment Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
FRIDAY 30 JUNE—Debate on the conduct of local government in Great Britain on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know on a provisional basis that in the following week, I propose that Monday 3 July should be another Opposition day, and that on Tuesday 4 July and Wednesday 5 July, the House should undertake consideration of the remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords]. Government business will also be taken on Thursday 6 July. On Friday 7 July, the House will not be sitting.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Does he recognise the serious concern about the Environment Bill [Lords], which will be considered on Report next week? Does he acknowledge that the Bill is now very different from the legislation on Second Reading? There have been 237 Government amendments in Committee and the Government have now tabled another 77 amendments to be considered on Report, apparently with more to come. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the scale and number of amendments will make it virtually impossible for the House to consider the changes properly, even with a two-day Report stage? It cannot be good legislation to have so many amendments at that stage, especially as the Bill originated in another place.
On a different matter, does the Leader of the House think that it might be appropriate to have a debate on the remarks of the Minister for Industry and Energy, who threatened the Shell oil company that it risks forfeiting the right to offset the costs of dealing with Brent Spar against petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax? We need to know whether the Minister was speaking for the Treasury or, given his view that Shell has dropped the Government in it, whether he was simply making vindictive threats.
Does the Leader of the House intend to provide time in the near future for a debate on the very important report of the Select Committee on Health into the London ambulance service? That must be a matter of urgency, as

491
the report reveals that lives have been lost. Even Conservative Members have said that Ministers have been extraordinarily complacent about the issue. Does the Leader of the House intend to allow a debate on that life and death matter in the near future?
Finally, will the Leader of the House tell us whether next Friday's debate on local government will be a serious debate, or are the rumours correct that it will be opened by the chairman of the Conservative party in his swan song?
Mr. Newton: As to the hon. Lady's last question, the debate on Friday is certainly intended to be—and I have no doubt that it will be—a serious debate. Anyone who has studied the report on the affairs of Monklands, for example, will be aware that there are a number of serious issues to debate. I can confirm that, because of the wide-ranging nature of the debate and the fact that it extends to all parts of Great Britain, it will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio.
Taking the hon. Lady's other three questions in reverse order, I have studied the report of the Select Committee on Health into the London ambulance service, which contains a number of important points and which the Government will clearly respond to in the proper manner. I cannot undertake to make time available for an early debate on the subject, although there are other ways in which time for debate might be found. I am always looking for opportunities to debate Select Committee reports, as I think that I have demonstrated.
As to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, I think that I can answer the hon. Lady most conveniently by saying that I understand that the company announced today that it will be making no requests for tax allowances for its share of any additional cost.
I acknowledge that there have been a substantial number of amendments to the Environment Bill [Lords]. That, in part, reflects the Government's wish—and indeed their anxiety—to respond to many points made by various bodies, including the Opposition, during the passage of the Bill. There would be just as many complaints if the Government had not responded to those representations.
Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has confirmed that the debate on Friday 30 June will be a serious one. Can he verify that hon. Members who are affected directly by the Monklands saga will be present in the House for that debate? I refer to the leading members of the Labour party who secured a private inquiry and who obtained information, but failed to give that information to the inquiry. There was obviously a cover-up and Labour Members must come to this place and answer for their actions. What means do we have at our disposal to ensure that they are present on the day to answer to the House, as Labour Members are always asking others to do?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has already used the most potent means at his disposal, which is to draw attention to the conclusions that will be drawn should those to whom he refers not be in attendance. I do not know whether it is a deficiency, but I have no powers to direct the attendance of Members in the House.
Ms Margaret Hodge: I heard the response to the question about the London ambulance service, but as there is no hospital in my constituency or in the borough following the closures, my constituents are badly
492
affected by the extremely poor service from the London ambulance service. According to the report in the Today newspaper, only 15 per cent. of 999 calls are answered within eight minutes, despite the Secretary of State's commitment to improve it. In view of that, it is appropriate that the Leader of the House should provide a proper debate in Government time on that serious issue.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, but the hon. Lady might have acknowledged that as a result of a huge amount of effort by Ministers and health authorities, after a long period of difficulty in the London ambulance service, which is still not totally overcome, there have been substantial improvements in performance in recent months. That is the result of the effort that has been put in by the Government.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note that today's Order Paper shows that early-day motion 557, calling for a construction contracts Bill, has no fewer than 171 signatures, despite being a relatively narrow motion?
[That this House notes that the construction industry produces almost 10 per cent. of gross national product and is made up of more than 200,000 companies and a workforce of over one and a quarter million people; welcomes the proposals put forward by the Latham Report to improve the relationship between clients, contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry and improve value for money by an estimated 30 per cent. over the next five years and so encourage an increase in construction activity; notes the crucial role that a Construction Contracts Act would play in the implementation of the report's findings, recognising that it will reduce commercial red tape, and improve payment security by reducing payment abuse, introduce trust funds, and provide for a system of speedy and inexpensive dispute resolution; and therefore requests that Her Majesty's Government considers the introduction of a Construction Contracts Bill, during the next Parliamentary session, as recommended in the Report.]
I understand that the consultation period, which ends next week, reveals industry-wide support for such a measure. Can my right hon. Friend offer us a sign that the Government will respond to the widely held requirement for such a Bill, which would reduce costs—and that should commend it even to the Treasury?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to anticipate the Queen's Speech, to use a time-honoured phrase. He will know, however, that I have repeatedly made what I hope he and others will have taken as friendly noises towards that proposition.
Ms Liz Lynne: There are now a staggering 1 million primary schools in England with class sizes of more than 30. Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on primary school education and nursery provision?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady knows that the Government are considering policy on those matters. I hope that her patience will not be tested too much longer.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a statement is made next week on matters that came to light in Home Office questions today? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the

493
Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), told us that an escaped prisoner from Parkhurst was able to ring "The World at One" to give an interview? That is outrageous. If my right hon. Friend cannot provide a statement next week, will he ensure that a full report on that particular incident is placed in the Library?
Mr. Newton: I am glad to say that, with his usual assiduousness, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me an account of the exchanges during Home Office questions. I can best acknowledge my hon. Friend's legitimate concern and refer him to what my right hon. Friend said.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House believe that we should have a debate about procedures in this place, in particular the rules of etiquette? Has he seen The Sun today, in which a former chairman of the Conservative party criticises the present chairman of the Conservative party? Is not it about time that we had a debate, so that people could get rid of their steam and ill-will towards each other?
Mr. Newton: I have noticed that there are two kinds of debate: one in which people get rid of their steam and the other, which is more frequent, in which the steam is raised. I do not want to look for one of the latter.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Given the serious threat to environmental safety resulting from pressures put on Shell, which brought about the abandonment of the deep-water sinking of Brent Spar due to the irresponsible behaviour of certain individuals and foreign Governments, will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the issue before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend raises. I do not think that I can give any undertaking. I thought the most fascinating question during Prime Minister's questions was asked by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). On the day after his party was claiming credit for having prevented the deep-sea sinking of the rig, the hon. Gentleman was protesting about the possibility that it might arrive in his part of Scotland.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland be making a statement next week, apart from in Question Time, on how the peace process in Northern Ireland is being destabilised, as he has put it in a letter to The Times, as a result of the civil war in the Tory party and a campaign by Tory Members against the Prime Minister?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comment on that matter less than an hour ago. It has already been implicitly acknowledged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will answer questions next Thursday. I do not at present anticipate any statement apart from the opportunity that Northern Ireland questions will provide.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it possible to follow up the early-day motions on Brent Spar, including the one in my name, early-day motion 1280?
494
[That this House waits to hear from Greenpeace, the German government, the opposition parties and others why they prefer a less favourable environmental approach and a more risky method for the disposal of Brent Spar.]
Given the dispute as to which is the most favourable and least favourable environmental disposal option and which is the more risky for those who will be involved in turning the rig sideways and bringing it to land, would it not be a good idea to allow Opposition and Government Members to debate the issues, with scientific advice, and to take full account of the health and safety risks, which appear to be welcomed by many Opposition Members?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's further support for such a debate, which will obviously increase still further my willingness at least to consider the matter.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay by the Government or Ministers in the publication of the Scott report and its early debate in the House?
Mr. Newton: Certainly, I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Government have not been seeking to promote delay, let alone unnecessary delay.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I press my right hon. Friend once more for a debate on grant-maintained schools? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to expose the Labour party's policy on education. It is trying to say that it is now friendly towards grant-maintained status, yet in a letter the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) stated that his party is opposed to grant-maintained schools and wants to bring them back into a local democratic framework. The parents of the children who attend grant-maintained schools in my constituency voted to get themselves out of Labour Lancashire control. The last thing that they want is to have councillors foisted back on to their governing bodies.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some good points, which follow others made earlier in business questions and Prime Minister's questions. I cannot promise a debate, and I rather doubt that the Opposition will use one of their Supply days for such a purpose. I can, however, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be answering questions next Tuesday.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House help us? Is the title chosen for the debate on Friday 30 June and the Government spokesman, the Minister Without Portfolio, a confession that there is not real local government in Northern Ireland?
In the light of an unprecedented press release yesterday by the Minister for Health following the publication of the report on the London ambulance service, and having waited, as usual, some weeks for a Government report, surely it is time to debate that matter at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Newton: Of course, I note, especially given its provenance, a further request for a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will also take note of the hon. Gentleman's request.

495
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was rather different from the second. The title given to the debate should be interpreted not as any sort of confession but as perhaps more of a recognition that discussions are taking place in other ways about Northern Ireland.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said and call for a debate on grant-maintained schools? Is my right hon. Friend aware that parents in my constituency are very alarmed at what they see as the socialist shambles in the Labour party's proposed education policy? They see a threat to the independence of their schools, and what we are seeing is creeping town hall dictatorship, which, frankly, they do not want.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is quite right to see a threat to independence, which so many schools value, disguised under a cloud of misleading language. Even so, I could promise a debate only if my hon. Friend were prepared to give me an assurance that she would be prepared to contemplate the House sitting into August.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Last June, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in a flurry of publicity, opened a private hospital in Scotland, which went into receivership in November. Is the Leader of the House aware of the concern, on both sides of the House, that at a time when the NHS is starved of resources, £28 million of public money went into what was described by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) as a "dodgy venture"? Does he not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland should come to the House next week so that we can debate the issue and put questions to him?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Public Accounts Committee held a hearing on that issue yesterday and will now draw together any conclusions that it has reached. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comments.
Mr. Peter Luff: Thank you, Madam Speaker, or should I say Dr. Speaker? Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on all country sports, not just those involving mammals? Does he agree that such a debate would enable all of us in the House—there are some Opposition Members—who believe that participation in such sports should be a matter for the individual conscience, to expose the shabby hypocrisy of a party that pledges its support for angling, because its supporters fish, but seeks to oppose hunting with hounds because it believes—wrongly—that only Tories hunt?
Mr. Newton: It seems to me that many of the same issues arise in relation to all the aspects to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will next week's business be similar to this week's business in Committee? Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday there were 33 Committee meetings, covering 408 places? A total of 380 Members were involved—some were serving on two Committees—so more than half the Members of the House were involved in Committee work on that occasion. Is not that occurring increasingly because Parliament is meeting less often, which means that Committee meetings have to be squashed into more limited periods? Can we consider that when planning the sittings of the House?
Mr. Newton: There are a variety of factors, including the fact that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have in recent times been more reluctant to sit for long hours into the night, and it is probably sensible that they should not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who sometimes makes comments that suggest that nobody in this place does any work at all, for drawing attention to the amount of work that does take place.
Mr. John Marshall: Madam, Dr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your absence yesterday?
Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on early-day motion 1272?
[That this House believes that the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II is the ideal time to acknowledge the terrible suffering of the former servicemen and civilian internees who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during the course of the War; expresses its deep concern that, despite the 50 years that have elapsed since the end of the War, the Japanese Government has failed to apologise formally for their actions and compensate the former prisoners of war and civilian internees for their suffering; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take whatever steps it can to support the former prisoners, including refusing to agree to Japan being given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, until this matter is resolved and by calling on the Japanese Government to apologise fully to the former prisoners of war and civilian internees and compensate them to the sum of £14,000 each.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese treated their prisoners viciously and abominably, and that that very rich country should pay them compensation?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw a delegation of some of those affected by those matters yesterday. It is, of course, the Government's view that the question of compensation was legally settled by the peace treaty of 1951, but as I think my hon. Friend knows,. the Government continue to make clear to the Japanese Government the strong feelings on that issue, which my hon. Friend and others articulate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House stop protecting the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that there is a debate in Government time on the London ambulance service in the near future? Is he aware that it was more than 10 years ago when I and a number of Labour Back Benchers first raised the issue of the problems of the LAS: its lack of investment and its poor performance? Those issues have been constantly raised ever since. All the problems that we and many others outlined have been confirmed time and again by a number of inquiries and Select Committee reports. It is abominable that after all this time the people of London still do not have an efficient ambulance service that they can rely on, and responsibility for that lies entirely with the Secretary of State and her Department.
Mr. Newton: I can assume only that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report, as I have, because it in no way corresponds with his last sentence.
Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of the Labour party's astonishing decision not to make public the evidence given to the Black inquiry into Labour

497
Monklands, has my right hon. Friend any power to persuade the Select Committee on the Environment to launch its own inquiry into the depths of depravity, corruption and abuse at Monklands so that that evidence can he made public?
Mr. Newton: No, I have no such power, but I think it rather a good idea for the Committee to examine the matter.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House still enjoying his job? Each week he comes here to announce the business for the ensuing week. On a number of occasions recently, business—at least on the Floor of the House—has collapsed at 7 or 8 pm. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to arrange a debate about debates? If not, perhaps we can have some discussion through the usual channels. We are losing good debating time on the Floor of the House; if business is to collapse early, perhaps we can reach an agreement whereby the time could be used by assiduous Back Benchers who want to raise a number of subjects.
Mr. Newton: I am still enjoying my job, and one of the parts of it that I enjoy most is hearing the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs recently published an excellent report about the private security industry. Because the report sensibly avoids any possible public expenditure, however, it cannot be debated on estimates days. Will my right hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the Committee's pleas for a debate on that important issue—in Government time, or perhaps a three-hour debate on a Wednesday morning?
Mr. Newton: Wednesday mornings are primarily a matter for application to you, Madam Speaker. I shall continue to listen sympathetically to my hon. Friend's other comments.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House, in lieu of the Prime Minister, about the subject matter of a press conference convened by the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street 10 minutes ago? Surely, if an extraordinary press conference is to be held about some matter that is yet to be disclosed, it ought to be disclosed to Parliament by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House, rather than to the press. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the subject of the press conference, so that, if necessary, we can ask for an extraordinary statement or a special debate?
Mr. Newton: I can confirm that I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is holding a press conference. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own inquiries about the subject matter.
Mr. Harold Elletson: In an earlier reply, my right hon. Friend said that he was always keen to find an opportunity to debate Select Committee reports. Is he aware that the Select Committee on the Environment is shortly to launch an inquiry into the workings of the single regeneration budget, but probably will not produce its report until October, after the next round of SRB bids has been announced? Would it therefore be appropriate to arrange a short debate about the workings of the single regeneration budget on the Floor of the House, particularly so that we can examine some of the problems faced by coastal resorts and ways in which the SRB could he used to assist them?
Mr. Newton: That is a very good idea, and I shall consider it.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to today's Order paper and in particular to Question 4? You were unable to call the hon. Member who had tabled it, because he was not present. I understand that there can be reasons for hon. Members not to be present, but would you have any objection to allowing another hon. Member to ask the question if the hon. Member whose name is on the Order Paper is unavailable? If you have no objection, perhaps the matter could be raised with the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can answer the point of order, and there can be only one. I would have the strongest possible objection to any hon. Member asking a question that was in another's name. I know that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) really raised the matter to highlight the fact that hon. Members are not always in their places to be called, and I hope that that has strengthened my elbow: I am often very cross when hon. Members do not let my office or Ministers know when they are unable to put their questions.
Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. Is this a different point
Mr. Banks: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is in Paris attending a meeting of the Western European Union. No doubt he should have told you that
500
he would not be here, and withdrawn the question; but I think that the House ought to know that he is on parliamentary business elsewhere.
Madam Speaker: Irrespective of whether hon. Members are on parliamentary business, I think it right that my office should be told when they are not present to put their questions.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Madam Speaker: We are not having a debate about the matter. Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Bottomley: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible to send Question 4 to the compilers of the "Oxford English Dictionary"? Given the number of car crashes, the spelling "wreckless" ought to be noted.
Madam Speaker: How observant of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Mr. McLoughlin rose—
Madam Speaker: Yet another point of order!
Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not mean in any way to criticise the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy); I was merely making the point that the subject matter of the question was particularly important. I do not think that we shall have another chance to discuss it in Home Office questions for some time.
Madam Speaker: Indeed. I know that a number of hon. Members were anxious to ask supplementary questions. I entirely understand that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has duties elsewhere, but I repeat that when hon. Members have duties elsewhere, they are aware of the questions that they have tabled, and ought to apologise to the House.

Orders of the Day
  Crown Agents Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1

  THE CROWN AGENTS FOUNDATION
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of any securities or rights issued to him in pursuance of section 3 above or acquired by him under section 4 above except to a company which shall be known as the Crown Agents Foundation (the "Foundation") and which complies with the conditions set out in this section.
  (2) The objects of the Foundation shall be—

  (a) to acquire and hold on such terms as the Foundation may think fit such securities or rights issued to the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 3 above or acquired by him under section 4 above as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, transfer to them;

  (b) to relieve the poverty, distress and suffering of peoples in any part of the world arising from any disaster or the immediate or continuing results of want of natural or artificial resources or the means to develop them; and

  (c) to promote the education and training of peoples in any part of the world where there is a want of natural or artificial resources or the means to develop them in any vocational, commercial, industrial or agricultural skills calculated to alleviate the want of such resources or means.

  (3) Every member of the Foundation (a "subscriber) shall, with the consent of the Secretary of State, undertake to contribute such amount as may be required, not exceeding £1, to the Foundation's assets if it should be wound up while he is a member, or within one year after he ceases to be a member, for payments of the Foundations debts and liabilities contracted before he ceases to be a member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves.
  Provided that a majority of subscribers shall have direct experience of the objects of the Foundation under subsection 2(b) and (c) above.
  (4) The subscribers shall elect, whether from among their number or otherwise, the Council of the Foundation ("the Council") which shall manage and may exercise all the powers of the Foundation.
  Provided that a majority of members of the Council shall have direct experience of the objects of the Foundation under subsection 2(b) and (c) above.
  (5) The powers, duties, obligations and organisation of the Foundation shall be set out in a Memorandum and Articles of Association, a draft of which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State.'.—[Miss Lestor]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.45 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Underpinning debates on Crown Agents in the Chamber, in Committee and in the other place has been a genuine cross-party desire to maintain the development focus of Crown Agents, while at the same time securing its commercial future. That task is difficult, and I must record my continuing belief that the privatisation is not wholly compatible with the development aims of the organisation. Opposition Members will be keeping a close watch over the fine print of the privatisation programme, and will not hesitate to raise our relevant concerns in the future.
  502
  Many of our detailed misgivings, however, have been somewhat allayed as a result of the answers given by Ministers during those debates, and in particular the Government's response to close and persistent questioning in Committee from my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Where is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)?
  Miss Lestor: I believe that he is in an aeroplane, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to know.
  I am also particularly grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Minister for Overseas Development for the eve-of-Committee release of the memorandum and articles of association. The resulting brisk and businesslike discussion clarified many important aspects.
  I am being so nice to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but he is not responding in any way. In case he did not hear what I said, I was thanking him very much for the memorandum and articles of association, for which we had asked during an earlier debate.
  One of our concerns related to the lack of detail in the Bill and, in particular, to the vague references to the composition page 9 of the foundation that will assume responsibility for the running of Crown Agents. Our anxieties on that specific issue have not been allayed. What do we know about the composition and responsibilities of members of the foundation? The Minister for Overseas Development has told us that foundation members will not receive dividends and will not be appointed by Ministers, that some may serve on the board and that existing members of Crown Agents' board will be among the founder members.
  In Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State provided us with a list of organisations from which foundation members would emerge. I say "emerge" because it is far from clear by what process potential members will identify themselves, or he identified by some other body or individual. He said:
  "The Government will not be involved in nominating or selecting subscribers, but we hope"—
  hon. Members should note the word "hope"—
  "that a group of organisations will naturally coalesce".
  Is it really all to be left to chance? Can we expect to see a rash of small ads in the financial columns of The Guardian, for example—"Single company seeks others for joint venture, view formation of foundation to run Crown Agents. Please send prospectus"? Of course not. The Minister went on to say:
  "I imagine that the existing Crown Agents will have some synergy in that process."
  Such vagueness is why I raise this point; it is a clear abrogation of Government responsibility. When pressed by my hon.—and absent—Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the Minister suggested a list of the sort of organisations that might be interested in "coalescing". He suggested that
  "the British Consultants Bureau, the British Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, the Chartered Institute of Building"

  503
  might be in the frame, but he did not go on to give any more specifics, adding that that group might be joined by
  "organisations that are involved in developmental studies".— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 June 1995; c. 13.]
  Which organisations? Why, when he could be specific about the former group, was he unable to name a single developmental organisation that might be involved? That vagueness causes us concern.
  Therefore, will the Minister advise us which developmental organisations he has in mind? He has identified that, so he must have some in mind. Has the Crown Agents had any approaches from or made approaches to United Kingdom development organisations, or foreign development organisations based in other countries, for example, the Japanese National Aid Agency? So far, my searches among the major UK providers of developmental assistance—the non-governmental organisations—have failed to identify any such approaches. I hope that the Minister will fill that in.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I declare a connection? I am one of the grandchildren of a Crown agent from just before the war. Does the hon. Lady know whether the foundation trustees would be barred from being Members of the House? If not, would it not be a good idea if she suggested that, to give confidence and allay fears, she should seriously be considered as one of the people who could become one of the foundation trustees?
  Miss Lestor: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman singles me out in that way, but, quite honestly, I have no wish to do that and I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding people in such a position; it is not something that I seek in any way.
  We know from discussions that have taken place between the Overseas Development Administration and the Treasury that, in some ministerial circles, a strong feeling exists that the foundation should be made up of what I believe has been called "hard-nosed business men"—in order not to be sexist, I would add women as well, although I am not a hard-nosed business woman and have no wish to be. I have no wish to impugn the integrity of such people, but I must call into question their commitment to development—and it is the developmental side that I am concerned about and that should be at the heart of the foundation. That is why we have argued and continue to argue for a balance to be established, and that half the initial subscribers to the foundation should have a background in development issues.
  In the circumstances, I cannot see how the Minister can continue to maintain what seems to be his distant approach to the process of establishing the foundation, especially as he has agreed that the Government will retain an active interest in the running of the foundation for the traditional period. If the Crown Agents is to maintain—and enhance—its reputation after privatisation, it must have at the heart of its structure a management that retlects the developmental purpose of the organisation which we would hold it has. I hope therefore that the Minister, if he wishes to have our support, will give us an assurance that that will be the case.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I apologise to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss
  504
  Lestor) if I appeared not to be paying full attention at one stage to what she was saying. It was not intentional and I thank her for her kind comments.
  Throughout the Bill's passage, we have been trying to reassure all hon. Members of what we are about: ensuring that the Crown Agents can take its work forward into the 21st century as a developmental agency, but within the private rather than the public sector. We have achieved that because, if one considers the new clause tabled by the Opposition, it summarises many of the Government's plans for the Crown Agents. I congratulate the hon. Lady on drafting the new clause in that way. It could have been drafted only by someone who had read the various speeches that Ministers have made here, in another place and in Committee, and it summarises the understanding and commitments that we have given to both the House and another place.
  Of course we understand the concern behind the new clause: to know as much as possible about our proposals. The Government have already gone the extra mile to meet that concern. We have placed in the Library a copy of the draft memorandum and articles of association for the foundation that will own Crown Agents. We have said that the information memorandum for prospective members will be published well before transfer, and that we will present a further report to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have given the House as much information as is consistent with commercial confidentiality and the complex process of transferring a business into the private sector.
  It is inappropriate to attach to legislation the extra information that the Government have made available. The Bill follows a precedent set in the House and followed on every previous occasion. It is an enabling measure, designed to expedite measures that the Government have described many times in great detail. It is unnecessary to specify the intended eventual owner in this way.
  There will not be any extra benefit from the new clause. It will not reveal more about the nature of the foundation than is already known. It is not designed to change Government policy—we are committed to the foundation route. We have said from the first that the owner of the Crown Agents in the private sector will be an independent foundation whose memorandum and articles will commit it to a social and developmental purpose. We have said that it will be a company limited by guarantee that will not distribute dividends to its members, but use its profits solely in pursuit of its objectives.
  We have also given some indication of the balance of membership that we envisage for the foundation. Of course it is appropriate that its membership should reflect the international character of the Crown Agents' activities and social purpose, and that it should provide an enduring basis on which to expand the business. Membership will consist of organisations active in international development which endorse the Crown Agents' purpose and principles. Those will include charities, private sector companies, professional and trade organisations, other aid organisations and enduring institutions.
  There has been little time since Committee to enable us to be more definite about prospective membership of the foundation because of the progress that we have made with legislation, but I can give the names of some of the organisations that have expressed their interest in membership since Committee—these are of course in

  505
  addition to those that I gave on Second Reading. They include financial institutions such as Barclays bank, companies from industry such as Cable and Wireless, professional bodies such as the British Standards Institution, and registered charities such Christian Aid, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and the development education organisation, Worldaware. We are therefore seeking to strike a balance between those with business experience, those who have experience in developmental work, and those who have experience in aid and development more generally.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that we most certainly do not see the foundation as being made up simply of, as she put it, hard-nosed business men and women; we see it as reflecting the broad interests of Crown Agents. On Second Reading I explained in some detail—the House will recall that we had a full day's debate on Second Reading—how the foundation and its membership will come about.
  I think that the last part of the new clause is intended to subject transfer to an affirmative resolution procedure. Again, we are on well-trodden ground. The Government have made available a wealth of information about the owner of the Crown Agents. Ownership of the business will be passed to the foundation, whose draft memorandum and articles of association are available to hon. Members—copies are in the Library. The Government's plans are well known and there is no reason to break with precedent in this case and attach further unnecessary conditions to the transfer.
  I hope that the hon. Lady, having heard further information about the membership of the foundation, and that organisations such as Christian Aid are prepared to be identified with it in due course, will feel that it is not necessary to press the new clause.
  Miss Lestor: The Minister has been a little more forthcoming in response to questions that I have raised. As he said and as I reiterated, we are anxious that this has a development angle as well as a business angle. He has gone a little way to meet my requirements. He is asking us to take a lot on trust but, as I am still, despite my many years in the House, a trusting individual, I shall just say to the Minister that we will be watching the formation of the foundation carefully. I hope that what he has said is reflected in the make-up of the foundation and in the angle that we have proposed. For those reasons, I am happy not to press the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third reading read
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third.time—[Mr. Baldry.]
  4.59 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: It is with great pleasure that I welcome the final stage of this important Bill. I have the privilege and pleasure to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of Crown Agents is located. Therefore, I have been taking a detailed and careful interest in the Bill's progress. I do that because I regard Crown Agents as the flagship for the United Kingdom. When we talk about Great Britain, we believe that that is symbolised in
  506
  the magnificent work of Crown Agents. It is the leading aid procurement agency in the world. It has handled an enormous amount of important work for the Overseas Development Administration and the Japanese Government as well as for many other customers throughout the world—indeed, in 150 countries.
  This enabling Bill is important because we hope to see Crown Agents being given greater commercial freedom to be able to move into the 21st century. It is essential that Crown Agents should be unfettered and should be set free from the remaining Government restraints. I hope that as we move into the transition phase, all the comments and recommendations that I made on Second Reading and in Committee will be discussed carefully and heeded. In the end we all want Crown Agents to continue the magnificent work of which we are so proud.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Baldry: The Crown Agents Bill has now had a thorough examination at each of its stages in this House and in another place. We have debated a number of key issues including the corporate structure of the proposed foundation and the operating company, aspects of the financial arrangements of the new Crown Agents and the interests of staff and pensioners.
  I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the proceedings on the Bill for the constructive way in which they have approached it. It took a little time to convince the Opposition that we were genuine in our intentions. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, there is a measure of trust on this. I hope that we have demonstrated, through the memorandum and articles of association and the other work that we have done, that we want to see Crown Agents move into the 21st century, retaining its existing ethos but within the private rather than the public sector.
  The Bill allows Crown Agents to take a further important step forward in its long and distinguished history. It contains the necessary enabling provisions to provide a stable and secure future for the business fully in the private sector well into the 21st century.
  We have put the Government's plans for Crown Agents on record in the House and in the draft memorandum and articles of association. We intend that those plans will preserve what is best in Crown Agents tradition in a form suited to our modern and increasingly competitive world. We will continue to make available information to hon. Members if it is not commercially sensitive and once we are certain that it is the right approach. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will present a further paper to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs before transfer is due to take place.
  I have said that I will be glad to consider any suggestions that hon. Members may have to improve the memorandum and articles of association with the proviso that they are not, ultimately, the property of the Government but of the foundation. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Crown Agents every success. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has the Crown Agents headquarters in her constituency. She has been a tireless champion of Crown Agents throughout proceedings on the Bill. Crown Agents should be grateful that it has such a doughty Member of Parliament. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes Crown Agents every success as it moves on to its next stage.
  5.3 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: We could continue this debate until 10 o'clock, but in view of the assurances that the Minister has given and the fact that some important matters may be raised in a moment, I join the Minister in wishing Crown Agents good fortune for the future. We will be looking at the details of this with great interest and I hope that things go well and smoothly.

Points of Order
5.4 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister has announced his resignation as leader of the Conservative party and has announced that he will be a candidate in any forthcoming election. Have you had any notification of that statement? Have you had any notification that the Prime Minister will come to the House and make a statement? Have you any indication as to whether the most appropriate thing to do in all these circumstances would be to call a general election?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I can deal with that now. I have had no such indication.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Mackinlay: It is on the same subject, but it is a different point. If the news that has been imparted to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is true, it has raised a constitutional issue which requires that before the House adjourns, there should be a statement from the Government. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is the Prime Minister, not just the leader of the Conservative party. We need to know who is running the country, if indeed anybody is doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon has not announced his resignation as Prime Minister. They are two separate offices. Whatever the ins and outs of this, it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a different point of order. Will you take this opportunity to condemn the growing practice of making important statements about key constitutional issues, regardless of the niceties as to whether someone is the Prime Minister or the leader of a party, to press conferences rather than to the House of Commons?
Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that this matter does not relate precisely to the House of Commons.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the information that we have just heard unprecedented in modern political times? I have searched my memory, to the extent that I can, and I do not believe that such an event has happened before this century. Does not that raise some fundamental issues which it would be right for the House to have an opportunity to consider? Is there some mechanism available by which these issues can be discussed in that part of the day's business which is still available, in view of the speedy resolution of the matter with which we have just been concerned?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated clearly that this is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Banks: It is a different point in that you have the power to suspend the House for a period of time during which discussions could take place. These are grave matters and it is ludicrous that the House has no opportunity to discuss them. I understand your difficulties, but a short suspension at this time would be helpful for us all.
Madam Deputy Speaker: My overriding duty in the Chair is to ensure that the business before the House on this day is transacted.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all appreciate the difficulties that face you. I hope that you will also appreciate the difficulties facing hon. Members and Ministers who might want to participate in debates today. Given the news that we have just heard, there is a serious question about the authority that Ministers have to come to the Dispatch Box and speak on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister.
There is a complete sense of disintegration within the Government, not just from the Prime Minister but from other Ministers. All of us who participate in debates, whether from the Opposition or the Government Benches, have noticed that in recent weeks. During the remaining proceedings in the House today, we need to be sure that Ministers who speak do so with the authority of the Prime Minister and that clearly is not the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier announcement about the fact that the position of Prime Minister has not been renounced and so for Ministers it all goes on.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes. When the leadership of a country is in such disarray, as it obviously is today, surely it is a matter for the House. You are entirely right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that being leader of a party is different from being the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is of enormous importance to the public and to hon. Members that other countries that may be looking on will see that the Government appear to be disintegrating from the top. Surely that matter should be the subject of an urgent debate. Perhaps there should be an Adjournment of the House to consider the matters and—subsequently—a debate on these enormously important developments.
Mrs. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would greatly assist hon. Members if the Leader of the House were to make a statement to explain the situation. I understand that the Leader of the House is in the building and it would be helpful to
510
everyone if he were to make a statement. If he cannot be present at this precise moment, perhaps the only option open to the House is a brief suspension of the sitting so that hon. Members may ascertain all the circumstances and so that Conservative Members, who have been coming in and out of the Chamber for the past few minutes trying to find out what is happening, may have their position clarified as well.
Such a degree of uncertainty is obviously very unsatisfactory, not least because there have been many opportunities during the afternoon for the Prime Minister to make the statement inside this House that he has just made outside it. When the Prime Minister and other Ministers do not have the courage to say in the House what they are prepared to say outside it, the role of the House is placed in doubt. Perhaps other people can throw light on the matter. The Leader of the House—at least—should make a statement and the sitting should be suspended until that statement is made.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I see no reason to suspend the sitting. I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the points made and—presumably—will be able to work through the usual channels. I have nothing further to add. I cannot allow this to develop into a general debate.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I need to know that it is a different point of order.
Mr. Austin-Walker: It is a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly you were not aware of the situation about which hon. Members have spoken. I wish to know whether Madam Speaker was informed and, indeed, whether Her Majesty the Queen was informed about the situation because it raises a poignant constitutional point. Can Madam Speaker come to the House to say whether she was made aware of the situation?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker. It is not for me to tell her what she should or should not do.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House obviously understands your difficulty. It is a very sudden announcement. Madam Speaker ought to come to the House and use her authority to explain what is required under such circumstances. In that case, would you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider a brief suspension of the sitting so that Madam Speaker may come to the House, which is her right and her duty as I see it?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker whether she returns to the Chair. It is not for me to send for her.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept and understand the point that you are making. We are in an extremely unusual and difficult position. In view of the concern in the House and throughout the nation, could a message be sent immediately to Madam Speaker to ask whether she could come to the Chamber so that the matter may be clarified?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, if the matter is of concern to hon. Members, the usual channels should be

511
invoked. I see representatives of the usual channels present. If it is their wish to use such means, they should get on with it.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have made a helpful and constructive suggestion. As the hon. Member responsible for my party's participation in the usual channels, we and the official Opposition would certainly like the opportunity to have discussions through the usual channels. Would not the best way to effect that immediately be to suspend the sitting for a short period to enable discussions to take place?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not regard that as necessary. Discussions can take place between the usual channels while the House is sitting.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With regard to the business of the House, the Crown Agents Bill [Lords] has been discussed and the Adjournment debate was about to start. Am I correct? In those circumstances, the House is likely to rise early and there may not be later opportunities to raise urgent matters on subsequent points of order. Would not it therefore be advisable to suspend the sitting?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. I have been amazed at the ingenuity of hon. Members in keeping business going when they choose to do so.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The resignation of a Prime Minister, a leader of a party in power, is obviously enormously important. The Prime Minister has recently answered questions in the House and while points of order have been raised with you, Ministers, obviously quite perplexed by what has happened, have been running in and out of the Chamber. Has not great discourtesy been shown to the House? Announcements have—it appears—been made regardless of the House. Is it proper for a Prime Minister to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time and not to mention such things? Is it correct procedure for a Prime Minister to resign as leader of his party and, therefore, place his position as Prime Minister in some jeopardy, without—it appears—properly consulting Ministers who are designated as Ministers by this House—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. I have already made it clear that there is a constitutional distinction to be drawn between the leader of a party and the Prime Minister. I have—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it very clear that this is not a matter for the Chair or one on which I can intervene. I have made a practical suggestion that the usual channels should get together and Make any decisions that they wish. In the meantime, I have a duty to ensure that the business of this House continues.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The argument has been put by several Opposition Members that the Prime Minister has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and that he should have made that announcement to the House of Commons.
512
With respect to those who have put that argument, they fail to make a distinction which lies at the very heart of our system of Government. Any Minister must learn very early in his career as a Minister the difference between party business, where he is not entitled—[Interruption.] This applies to any Minister at any level in the Government. Any Minister must learn the difference between party business, in which he is not entitled to the support of the civil service machine and on which he is accountable to a party audience, not to a House of Commons or Government audience. That is a fundamental distinction at the heart of any Minister's discharge of his responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has observed that central distinction. He has made the announcement outside this House about his status as the leader of the Conservative party because he is not accountable to this House for it. It does not affect his status as the Queen's First Minister, in which capacity he continues to answer as Prime Minister to this House and in which capacity he leads a Government in which all those sitting on the Treasury Bench continue to serve as members of the Queen's Government.—[interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I expect to have courtesy and consideration in the House. I will certainly hear no more points of order if there are ructions and rumpuses.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has raised an important point. Of course we all appreciate the difference between being leader of the Conservative party and being Prime Minister. The fact is, however, that although the Prime Minister may have resigned, for the time being or permanently, as leader of the Conservative party, he is still Prime Minister of this country and his first obligation ought to be to come to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is responsible to the House of Commons; he has spoken in the House today.
It is clearly the case that Conservative Members, including members of the 1922 Committee, have come to the Chamber since the matter was raised because they do not know what is happening. This situation is not good for Parliament and not good for the country. Why cannot the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House come to the House? We have time available. It would be foolish to move on to the Adjournment before we get a clear statement to the House.
What concerns hon. Members is the fact that the Prime Minister is treating this House with contempt. The position of the Prime Minister is not simply an internal matter for a few members of the Conservative party; it matters to this country as a whole. There are implications for this country as a whole and there are implications for any international negotiations in which the Prime Minister or other Ministers are involved over the next few weeks. It simply is not good enough for members of the Conservative party to think that all this can be done behind closed doors without Parliament being informed and without any repercussions for the country as a whole. This House demands and this House needs a clear statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the position quite clear from the point of view of the

513
Chair. I can deal only with matters that affect the Chair. The point of view that has been expressed has been clearly expressed; it has now been repeated on a number of occasions. I have made the only suggestion that I can make, namely, that the usual channels get together and see whether they can make some arrangements. It is not a matter for me and I cannot allow what would turn into virtually a full-scale debate on this.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that in none of the changes of the Labour leadership and in no change of the Tory leadership over the past 20 years during which I have been in the House, has there been a debate? Should not the Labour party realise that the big difference is not between being leader of the Tory party and being Prime Minister, but between being leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister? There has been a gap of 17 years and, judging by Labour's behaviour today, there is likely to be a gap of another 17 years.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Banks: I ask whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of what is going on here and in view of the possibility that good order in the House is in jeopardy, would be prepared to suspend the sitting. Surely you have the power to do so. That would give everyone the opportunity to have discussions outside rather than to have these exchanges across the Floor.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have told the House already—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time—that I do not see fit to adjourn the House. I have a duty to the agenda before us to ensure that it is completed.
Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful for me, as one of the Conservative Members who has come down into the Chamber, to explain to the shadow Leader of the House that I was in no doubt about what had happened. I came into the Chamber because I saw that something untoward was happening here. It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what you have ruled is entirely appropriate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a rather bizarre contribution, in the form of a point of order, from the Secretary of State for National Heritage in which he appeared to confuse the role of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister, acting as though this was a one-party state where the office of Prime Minister was within the gift of the Conservative party. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that you have been shown grave discourtesy in terms of the way in which the Government have behaved this afternoon? This House and, more importantly, the public on every street in this country have been shown discourtesy. The Conservative party plays fast and loose with these important issues. Should not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, insist that the Prime Minister now comes to the House to make a statement about his resignation and about what plans there are either for his replacement or, more hopefully, for an imminent general election?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State for National Heritage made at rather greater length the point I made earlier—that it is important constitutionally to draw a distinction between the leadership of a party and the office of Prime Minister.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the constitution that the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons is Prime Minister, appointed by the Queen on the advice of Privy Councillors, usually the outgoing Prime Minister? Is it not the case that when a party's leader has been the Prime Minister, on no occasion since the second world war has that party's leadership been changed without notice having been given to Her Majesty?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to know what advice has been tendered to Her Majesty.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one of the hon. Members who listened to the Prime Minister making his statement at 5 o'clock tonight, live on Sky television, I distinctly heard the Prime Minister make the point that he was resigning as the leader of the Conservative party, but that he would be a candidate in the forthcoming election for the leadership of the Conservative party. He also added that if he lost, he would immediately resign as Prime Minister. Given that he made it clear that he was only a challenger and that he might lose, and given the possibility of a new Prime Minister, is it not important that the House should be suspended to allow the Leader of the House to come here to clarify the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not have the advantage of hearing the statement. Even so, it seems to reiterate the point that has already been made. The Prime Minister remains as Prime Minister of this country.
Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition sometimes consider that there is an awful lot of humbug about the constitutional relationship between the Government and the monarch. The Tory party is selective in that, when it suits it, it ignores that relationship. There arc precedents. Lord Callaghan, Lord Wilson and others always said that they had advised the Queen of the fact that they intended to trigger an election in their political parties. Those are the ground rules by which they played. We have a right to know from the Prime Minister whether he has informed the head of state that there will be an election in the principal party. After all, being leader of that party gives the mandate to be Prime Minister. We need to know whether Buckingham palace has been informed and what its response has been. There are constitutional precedents for this. When Lord Wilson announced that he was stepping down as Prime Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point at some length. I have already told the House that I do not know what has passed between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen. I cannot know and it is certainly not my responsibility in the Chair. This matter has now been sufficiently aired. I propose to take no more points of order on it and I will move on.
Several Hon. Members: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

515
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Mr. Alan Duncan(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that four Opposition Members are declining to come out of the Lobby and are delaying the vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If that be the case, I have my remedies to hand.
The House having divided: Ayes 10, Noes 216.

Division No. 172]

[5.28 pm

AYES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mahon, Alice

Cox, Tom

O'Hara, Edward

George, Bruce

Tellers for the Ayes:

Gordon, Mildred

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mr. Peter Pike.

NOES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cohen, Harry

Allen, Graham

Colvin, Michael

Amess, David

Congdon, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Ashby, David

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Austin-Walker, John

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Denham, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Barron, Kevin

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bates, Michael

Dowd, Jim

Batiste, Spencer

Duncan, Alan

Battle, John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bayley, Hugh

Dunn, Bob

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Elletson, Harold

Beggs, Roy

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bell, Stuart

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Berry, Roger

Faber, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

Boateng, Paul

Forman, Nigel

Booth, Hartley

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Boswell, Tim

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forth, Eric

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brandreth, Gyles

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gallie, Phil

Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Gapes, Mike

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gardiner, Sir George

Burns, Simon

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Burt, Alistair

Garnier, Edward

Butler, Peter

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gillan, Cheryl

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Chapman, Sydney

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Chidgey, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clappison, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grocott, Bruce

516

Hague, William

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rendel, David

Hannam, Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Hendry, Charles

Robathan, Andrew

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hoey, Kate

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hoon, Geoffrey

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Horam, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Sackville, Tom

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hutton, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jack, Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Jenkin, Bernard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jessel, Toby

Sims, Roger

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Soames, Nicholas

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Soley, Clive

Khabra, Piara S

Spearing, Nigel

Kirkwood, Archy

Spellar, John

Knapman, Roger

Spencer, Sir Derek

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spring, Richard

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Legg, Barry

Stem, Michael

Leigh, Edward

Streeter, Gary

Lennmox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Sweeney, Walter

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lidington, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Thomason, Roy

Luff, Peter

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Macdonald, Calum

Timms, Stephen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

MacKay, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Trimble, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Madden, Max

Vaz, Keith

Maddock, Diana

Viggers, Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Malone, Gerald

Wallace, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Waller, Gary

Merchant, Piers

Ward, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Wareing, Robert N

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Watts, John

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Wells, Bowen

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Whitney, Ray

Morley, Elliot

Whittingdale, John

Mudie, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Neubert, Sir Michael

Willetts, David

Norris, Steve

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Yeo, Tim

Olner, Bill

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tellers for the Noes:

Powell, William (Corby)

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Randall, Stuart

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It arises from the advice that you gave us a short time before the Division, when you said that the best way to proceed might be for the usual channels to have some discussions to see whether the Leader of the House was willing to make a statement. During the Division, such discussions did take place, but the Leader of the House indicated that he was not willing to make a statement because he regarded the resignation

517
of the Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative party as nothing to do with this House. I do not think that the country as a whole will think that this is just a cosy matter for members of the Conservative party.
The matter raises some important questions about the workings of Parliament during the next few weeks. If the Prime Minister believes that he does not have the confidence of his own party, he clearly does not have the confidence of the House. There are questions for this House because we need to know with what authority Ministers will speak from the Dispatch Box. We need to know when Ministers are speaking as Ministers and when they are speaking as candidates in the Conservative party leadership election. We saw during the Division that several potential stalking horses were present. If we cannot—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is now becoming a general debate, and the hon. Lady's point is not a matter of order for the Chair.
Mrs. Taylor: If we cannot have a statement from the Leader of the House because he refuses to give one, and if we cannot have a statement from the Prime Minister because he also refuses to give one, may we have a statement from the President of the Board of Trade?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter has been thrashed out exhaustively by means of points of order. There are no more points of order that I can deal with, and it is now my duty to ensure that the next business is considered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order on the Prime Minister's statement at his press conference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. [Interruption.] Members must sit down.
Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Pike, sit down.
Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the Standing Orders of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It must be a totally different matter. I am taking no more points of order on the Prime Minister's statement.
Mr. Pike rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Pike: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the Standing Orders of the House. We have a procedure for debating urgent and important issues under Standing Order No. 20. Do you consider that this matter is urgent and important and should therefore be accepted for a debate under Standing Order No. 20?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Standing Order No. 20 cannot be used in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A little while ago I received a letter from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary informing me that the Prime Minister would be unable to answer questions on Tuesday 27 June as he would be attending the European Council in Cannes. Quite apart from the prudence of the Prime Minister being out of Britain next week, may I ask whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister has revised his plans and no longer intends to ask the Lord President of the Council to answer questions on his behalf next Tuesday?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not the responsibility of the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Spearing, on what I trust will be a different point of order.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When an unexpected matter of common knowledge arises which you regard as of sufficient significance, is it in order for an hon. Member to apply to you for permission to move the adjournment of the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly possible, but whether it is accepted by the Chair is another matter.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, may I ask permission to move such a motion for the following reason? The stability of the Government of Her Majesty depends on the stability of the Privy Council and, in particular, on its sub-committee known as the Cabinet. The Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury, and in that role he discharges many duties, including that of attending the important conference of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has acquainted the House. In view of the representational difficulties which may arise at that conference in the context of the full backing of the majority in the House, such as it is, for the conference and the carrying on of the business of the Queen's Government—
Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Spearing: I am on a point of order already.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If there is one thing that I cannot deal with, it is two points of order at the same time.
Mr. Spearing: It is clear from the points of order during our previous debate and subsequently that there is some uncertainty. Pending a statement from the Leader of the House, who ought to be here, has been requested to be here and has not said that he will make a statement, I beg leave to move such a motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to grant it.
Mr. Spearing: I therefore move the Adjournment of the House to discuss—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman's wish that the debate be now adjourned?
Mr. Spearing: I beg to move that the debate on this matter be adjourned pending a statement from the Leader

519
of the House. If there is no such statement, the pros and cons of the uncertainty will not be laid before the House. Other hon. Members may wish to give reasons for the motion, such as the stability of the Government and the majority that they can command in the House being in question.
It is clear that the instability in the Government ranks is not sudden. It is as if a grumbling appendix has been worsening among Conservative Members for a number of weeks. The grumbling has caused a good deal of comment in the press and has affected not only the position of the Prime Minister; there is also a great deal of speculation about the position of the Foreign Secretary, who is due at the Cannes conference in a few days' time. Without some sort of stability between the Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, and the Foreign Secretary, can Her Majesty's Government—still less the people of this country—be properly represented at that conference?
The agenda at the Cannes conference is of prime constitutional importance. Yesterday there was a six-hour debate in the House about many of the issues to be raised at Cannes. The matters to be discussed are not dissociated from the divisions in the ranks of Government supporters—if they are indeed Government supporters—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I have a little decorum and quiet?
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that it is not just a matter of the Government's credibility in their external relations, because the hiatus that will persist over the next two weeks will have profound internal implications for the country and for the business of the House? For example, it may delay the Nolan committee which is considering allegations in respect of matters which are vital to hon. Members. One consequential if not intended effect must be that.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The domestic consequences for legislation or what happens in the House is of prime importance to many citizens. Just a short while ago the Leader of the House announced next week's business. What guarantee can there be that that business will proceed? What guarantee have the general public that representations to their Members of Parliament over the weekend at their advice surgeries, in newspapers and in letters will be aired next week?
It is not unknown for Cabinets and Leaders of the House to change the business. We do not know whether the Leader of the House may be a candidate for leader of his party. Sponsors of certain legislation set down for next week might be thought to be enhancing themselves by an appearance at the Dispatch Box and could thus receive undue publicity. We just do not know.
Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman intends to ask further questions, I will gladly give way.
Mr. Ashby: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's views on Europe, does he not feel that he would be far safer in the hands of the present Prime Minister at the Cannes conference than in the hands of his leader, who would sell this country down the river?
Mr. Spearing: I do not think that the leadership of my party is in any way in question. The big question is the
520
leadership of the Conservative party. I will therefore not be tempted down the beguiling road indicated by the hon. Gentleman. As we know from those who were present at yesterday's debate, if an objective observer—I stress the word "objective"—were to compare the stances of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and that of the Foreign Secretary, who respectively outlined Opposition and Government policies in that debate, I am not too sure that the distinction would be that obvious. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is irrelevant.
Central to the events of the past hour or so is the fact that the abscess which has apparently being growing and festering and which has now burst among the ranks of Conservative Members was started by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). There was division in the Conservative party on that matter from the day I entered the House—25 years ago last Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who entered the House on that same day, has ample evidence and full knowledge of that festering.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Prime Minister said at his press conference that he had resigned as Tory party leader. That means that the Tory party is leaderless. The important thing to remember is that that is not enough. If the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the governing party, he has a duty to go to the Queen and ask to be allowed to call a general election so that the country can decide. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only way out of this impasse?
Mr. Spearing: Constitutionally, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know of no reason why the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), if he so wishes, should not get into his motor car, go to see Her Majesty and seek a Dissolution. In the House we have to be careful about the Crown and I should not like to speculate about what Her Majesty would say. However, I suggest that the Prime Minister has been so mobbed, as it were, by differing views, so provoked and discomfited and, I would not say exhausted, but has had so much difficulty balancing the two views in his party that it is hard for him to carry on the business of government. Indeed, the fact that there have been two views has clearly interrupted the Prime Minister's efficiency in the conduct of government.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spearing: I shall give way later. I am answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Prime Minister has been so discomfited that, like a person surrounded by bees or wasps, he has picked up his swatter and said, "Look, if you don't stop, I will go to Her Majesty and you can all go to the electorate."
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In moving the motion, my hon. Friend has several times drawn attention to the situation of the Queen and the issue of whether the Prime Minister should go to her. What powers has the House to ask for an opinion from, or send a message to, the Queen as to exactly what she ought to do in this situation? Does this not illustrate the problem of having a monarch rather than an elected president to deal with such problems?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I very much doubt whether Her Majesty needs the detailed advice of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Spearing: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Skinner: I said that the Prime Minister had a duty to go to the Queen, but he had better wait another half an hour or so as she will not be back from Ascot yet.
Mr. Spearing: I wish to develop that point as it is of constitutional importance. If we were in the position of the monarch—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as our No. 2 representative to the monarch can imagine the position—what would we see? Her Majesty would survey the broken state of the Conservative party.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spearing: I will give way in a moment.
Unlike the position with the left and right wings of Mr. Wilson's party, the Conservative party is unstable. The Queen might well say, looking at the opinion polls, that it was her duty to grant a Dissolution. It is not a matter on which it is for us to advise Her Majesty in the sense of giving a corporate view from the House, although it would be possible to move a suitable motion. It is a matter of the advice of the people in respect of the Government.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will note that the Conservative Benches are now denuded. Does he think that that is because Conservative Members are already outside laying their bets and doing their canvassing? In the circumstances, does that not support my hon. Friend's excellent motion and suggest that we should all go out and put a few bets on?
Mr. Spearing: Not yet, because we have yet to ventilate—and to a much greater extent than I have been yet been capable of—the plight not only of the Conservative party but of Her Majesty's Government and, therefore, the British people, who are currently leaderless.
Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend has referred to the position in respect of a general election. Constitutionally, that should of course take place in view of the Government's position. However, is my hon. Friend at all surprised that with the situation which exists in the country, with hardly a single Tory seat being held in by-elections, the Prime Minister simply refuses to go to the country because he knows what the result would be? Is that not a conspiracy against the British people to deny them the right to elect another Government? We should give them their democratic rights instead of going through the farce of the Prime Minister trying to save his job by having an internal election? What respect does he show to the House of Commons by refusing to come and make a statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members in their excitement that they should be addressing me rather than other hon. Members.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes a fascinating speculation. I suspect that it is not a matter of disrespect but of desperation.
522
I have more suggestions about what Conservative Members are doing. They are either grouping together around various of their right hon. Friends and getting their party leadership election machines ready, or perhaps they are hastening back to their constituencies for the very possibility that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Spearing: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
Mr. Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend recall the statement a few moments ago by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who strained to distinguish between the roles of Conservative leader and Prime Minister? Is it not fair to draw the attention of the House—and, indeed, your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the fact that the announcement was made from No. 10 Downing street and not from Conservative central office? That illustrates and buttresses the fact that the Government always confuse the Conservative party and Britain when it suits them. When they find themselves in the mire, they try to make a distinction. For far too long the Government have tried to imply that the Conservative party represents Britain, but when it causes them embarrassment they try to make a distinction.
The fact that the Prime Minister made his announcement in the grounds of No. 10 Downing street conflicts with the rules that he laid down for Ministers that such places are not to be used for party political purposes. He should have done it from central office. The fact that it was done in Downing street emphasises the fact that either he or the Leader of the House should be here to make a statement.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful again for the constitutional suggestions of my hon. Friends. One of the purposes of debate in the House, all too frequently ignored, is that we gather together the totality of human knowledge and political wisdom and distil it in Hansard to be put on record for ever and aye.
Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is right. I recall that at the time of general elections our late right hon. Friend Lord Wilson, then Mr. Wilson, first went to the office of his party, which in those days was Transport house in Smith square. The problem for the Prime Minister has been demonstrated by certain constitutional matters relating to expenditure and responsibility for debt. The Conservatives cannot run their own party, let alone the country. Who and what is the Conservative party? So far as I can see, it is the single person of the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend was right to point out the constitutional anomaly whereby the chairman of the Conservative party is not elected by anyone but appointed by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister has been discomfited by the performance of his party chairman.
Dr. Spink rose—
Mr. Tony Banks: Give way to a lonely Tory.
Mr. Spearing: I see that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is anxious to intervene.
Dr. Spink: This is the poorest political performance that I have observed from the Labour party. The hon.

523
Member is floundering as well as flannelling. The fact is that the Prime Minister has made a courageous move. It is a very clever move and one as a result of which he will win. It will give him the confidence to go on and to continue to run the country, deliver growth with low inflation and win the next election. The Opposition do not like it because their fox has been shot.
Mr. Spearing: The suggestion that I am floundering is very novel. I have been wonderfully sustained in my speech by my hon. Friends, which is more than can be said for the Prime Minister. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is my own Member of Parliament.
Mr. Soley: I have been seeking to help my hon. Friend on a constitutional matter. As I understand it, we do not need to trouble the Queen—she can stay at Ascot until the last train leaves. The matter depends on whether a majority can be commanded by the Prime Minister in the House. The proper route would have been for the Prime Minister to call for a vote of confidence here in the House, but his problem would then be that he would not know which way to vote.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The great difference between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party is that the majority of the party in the country and in the House behind the Leader of the Opposition is massive compared with the divisions and splits among the Conservatives. One can only imagine the coming weeks in politics and the band-width of possibilities this weekend.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My question is prompted by the very fair-minded answer that I received from the Prime Minister today to a question about Brent Spar. My hon. Friend is a decent fair-minded man. Has he no sympathy whatever at a personal level for a tormented and distressed Prime Minister?
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend ingeniously ventilated the problem of Brent Spar during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. Despite the cheers from the Conservatives, the affair is an enormous embarrassment to the Government. Had the Prime Minister got his way, or had he been wiser, environmental policies relating to the health of the sea would perhaps have been such that the Government would not have allowed such a terrible infection of the deep sea ever to be contemplated.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend will have heard the point of order that I raised a little while ago relating to the role of the monarch in these circumstances. The real problem is that the Prime Minister resigned as leader of the Conservative party and said that he will fight in the leadership election, but we, as elected representatives of the people, cannot set out constitutional guidelines about how things should be done. I suspect that the Government will try to manoeuvre the business of the House so that there can be no discussion.
If we had a head of state who was accountable to the elected representatives, there would have to be clear constitutional guidelines about whether we should have a general election or a vote of confidence, instead of matters being decided in the murky halls of power as they are at present.
Mr. Spearing: The structure of power in this country rests—or should rest—entirely in the Chamber and the Lobbies on either side. I recall that when the last Government fell on a vote of confidence—by only one vote, but that was enough—Lord Callaghan, as he is now, sprang to the Dispatch Box and said that he was going to the palace tomorrow. That is what the Prime Minister should do now because he has lost the confidence of his party and the country.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does my right hon. Friend remember that, during the visit of the G7 nations to Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister responded to some questions by saying that he had a coalition Government? Does my hon. Friend think that there is a possibility that the Prime Minister might apply to join the Labour party?
Mr. Spearing: That is perhaps taking things a little far. Being a Londoner, and acquainted with south London, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—we are both, of course, knowledgeable about east London—I have often noticed in the Prime Minister a certain understanding of and sympathy with ordinary people, which I do not always find in the party that he leads. I have a suspicion that some of his difficulties and some of the distrust that he has improperly attracted from members of his own party might be because, behind everything else, there is a lurking and, I would suggest, praiseworthy sensitivity to some of the things that ordinary people experience and which he has experienced but which all too few of his hon. Friends have experienced. I believe that the British public feel that strongly, but it has added to his difficulties.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is a well known constitutional expert and we appreciate his knowledge.
Mr. Ashby: Rubbish.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about rubbish, but nothing about the constitution.
The head of state usually calls on the leader of the party which commands a majority in the House to form a Government, but there is no longer a leader of the majority party. In those circumstances, would it not be up to the head of state to summon a Conservative Member whom she thought able to command a majority in the House? I understand that she is on her way back from Ascot; might she not at this very moment be contemplating sending for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has already made an appearance?
Mr. Spearing: That is not merely a hypothetical question, but something with which we may have to deal in the next few days. It is possible for the Conservative party to have a quick election, but—
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spearing: Not yet—I want to finish this point.
Because of the lack of confidence, which has been clearly demonstrated by the events of today, it is possible that the Prime Minister might advise Her Majesty to send for Mr. X or someone else. It may have been forgotten but, not too many years ago—after the election in February 1974—there was a little conversation when the

525
answer, given formally or informally, was, "Yes Madam, I will see if I can." That person then had to ascertain whether there was a majority.
I can imagine Her Majesty calling a certain right hon. Gentleman—it could be someone whom anyone here could name—but he might not be able to say at that stage, "Yes, Madam, I will" and then kiss hands, actually or metaphorically. That right hon. Gentleman would have to go to the Committee Room upstairs and see whether he could command a majority among the Conservatives. I am not sure whether any particular candidate—or, at least, any masculine candidate that I can think of—would necessarily be able to do so. If he could not, the House would have to be dissolved or—I have not yet worked out the mathematics of this—it might be possible that a combination of other parties would be more in a position to command consistent support, as happened with the Lib-Lab Government.
Mr. Frank Cook: May I draw my hon. Friend back to the invitation tendered to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who pleaded for sympathy for the Prime Minister because of the rebuff that he suffered from an oil company? Does my hon. Friend think that this gives a new meaning to the phrase, "Go Well, Go Shell"?
Mr. Spearing: Alas, the oil wells of the North sea did not let Britain go well despite the thousands of millions of pounds worth of oil that were gushing out of the North sea, as is the case with gas now. That gas is publicly owned although it may be privately distributed and pirated. As a maritime country, we should pay much greater attention to the well-being of our marine life, as my hon. Friend, with his knowledge and experience, will confirm. The disgraceful incident to which he refers is not a good example of a responsible attitude.
Mr. Brandreth: I am listening carefully as the hon. Gentleman manages to pack his two-minute speech into three quarters of an hour. Can he tell the House how his own reselection is going? Is he making any progress on that front?
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) winds up his speech on this unprecedented constitutional crisis, will you confirm the nature of the current proceedings? Is it the case that my hon. Friend is initiating a debate on the Adjournment which can continue until at least 10 pm so that the House can have an opportunity in the remainder of the evening to make its views felt on this unprecedented crisis?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The position is that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend is moving a motion that the current debate—not the House—be adjourned. That, of course, is debatable and could continue. It is not for me to say how long it might continue.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Presumably, if an application for a closure were made to you in the course of the debate, you would consider that matter. If you decided that the closure should be put, the House would be asked to vote on a closure motion. If that were carried, would it have the
526
effect of adjourning the House, or would you then have to consider a further application for the Adjournment of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear that we are not debating the Adjournment of the House. If the adjournment were carried, it would not mean the Adjournment of the House. It would be the adjournment of the current business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would give me your guidance. In considering the closure, or any application for a closure, do you take into account the fact that a speech is being made which is demeaning Parliament? Do you take into account the fact that remarks are being made by people who present themselves as worthy people of great substance and age but who are behaving like juvenile children? Or do you simply do it on the basis of how long this farce continues?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I take all manner of factors into account, but I do not share those with the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are obviously in an unprecedented position. Constitutionally, in the circumstances forecast previously when people have suggested that a hung Parliament might be the indecisive result of a general election and therefore the obligation would be on the monarch and her advisers as to whom to summon to form a Government, it has been contended that those advisers take soundings of Members of Parliament and the people concerned with that position. In circumstances such as these, when Parliament is sitting and the monarch must reach a judgment on the fact that the present holder of the seals of office as Prime Minister is not the leader of the majority party of the House because he has resigned as such, should not the House have the opportunity to give its advice to the monarch? Should there not be provision for a debate in which we might reach a conclusion on that matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I hope that we shall not return to the series of points of order that we had before. The House has the opportunity to have this debate on the adjournment of the present debate. I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to resume his speech.
Mr. Spearing: I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me to conclude my speech without further interruptions, although I am grateful for the matters that they have mentioned.
With regard to the point of order raised a few moments ago, it is my understanding that if the closure is moved and is successful we proceed to the Adjournment debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and the business on the Crown Agents would therefore be terminated—unless the closure was defeated, in which case that debate would be resumed until 10 o'clock. In the circumstances of the day, perhaps only the business of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North might be appropriate.

527
I wish to conclude on perhaps an even more serious note than the future of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Brandreth: Your own future.
Mr. Spearing: No—I am worried about the future of the House. I will leave the—[Interruption]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman. That becomes difficult, particularly when much of the noise seems to be coming from the hon. Gentleman's friends.
Mr. Spearing: Conservative Members should contemplate very seriously, because they are in Government, the fact that the difficulties which have existed in their party for the past few years—which started, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I know only too well, long ago—arise from the acknowledgment by the Crown, on the advice of the House, of certain very testing obligations in respect of domestic matters as well as those abroad: I refer to a series of treaties, the obligations of which are essentially destabilising to any party in the House because no party can any longer go with certainty to the electorate and place before them its full, free choice of legislation.
I shall not take that argument further now—it would not be opportune to do so—save to say that I believe that the difficulties of the Conservative party arise directly from that matter, and that that matter would be there for any Government, of any party, to solve. I hope that this incident alone may perhaps illustrate that, as I envisage Members on the Opposition side of the House moving to the Government side of the House after the next general election.
6.26 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not intend to speak at the same length as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that his last remarks were correct; that the split over Europe in the Labour party is as significant as the split in the Tory party. It is fair to say that. It is also true that, were we to have a Labour Government, they would probably need a majority of about 100 before they could outnumber their European rebels.
It would be unfair to say that the Labour party is wrongly using this opportunity. When one has a Labour party in Parliament whose members cannot stand in the Tory leadership election, which cannot nominate anyone for the Tory leadership election and which cannot vote in it, it feels left out.
The Labour party is used to its own system, which allows trade union leaders to decide 70 per cent.—or, shortly, 50 per cent.—who its leader should be. It has also introduced a new constitutional position whereby the leader of the Labour party becomes involved in who should be the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union.
If I may digress on that for a moment, the Labour leader's pet candidate, Jack Dromey, said in his election speech that he wanted the Transport and General Workers Union to be a first-class trade union, not a second-class political party. Neither Jack Dromey nor the leader of the Labour party said whether the expression, "a second-class political party", applied to the Transport and General Workers Union or to the Labour party. It had to apply to one or the other.
528
When we consider whether the debate on Third Reading of the Crown Agents Bill should be adjourned—
Mr. Kevin Barron: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is likely to support the Secretary of State for Health as a candidate for the next election in the Tory party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that we had better get back to the Question before us, and that is that the debate be now adjourned. Of course it is a fairly tight motion, and I shall be listening with due attention.
Mr. Bottomley: As grandson of a former senior Crown agent, as I explained during an earlier stage of the Crown Agents Bill—there may have been a different Deputy Speaker in the Chair when I spoke about that—I want to continue my arguments as to why the debate on Third Reading should not be adjourned. It would be reasonably fair to be allowed one or two sentences to follow the 40 minutes from the hon. Member for Newham, South.
There is another relevant point. I was elected to the House in a by-election in 1975 and that marked the start of the loss of the previous Labour Government's majority in this place. From 1975 to 1979, Labour was propped up in government by the Liberals, the Ulster Unionists and by other nationalists. The Labour party has plenty of experience of trying to remain in government without a majority. In 1976 the Labour party changed its leader. There was no debate on the Floor of the House of Commons when Harold Wilson resigned.
Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Harold Wilson's decision to resign in 1976, he can draw no parallel with the current situation because Harold Wilson made it clear that he was resigning not merely as party leader but also as Prime Minister and that he would remain as a caretaker Prime Minister in the intervening period until an election was called and held and his successor found. There was no question of Harold Wilson's doing what the present Prime Minister is trying to do: resign as Tory party leader, hang on as Prime Minister and hope that he will win the ensuing leadership election and continue as Prime Minister. He wants to have his cake and eat it. While I am on my feet, I must ask: who is the hon. Gentleman going to vote for?
Mr. Bottomley: I do not actually expect that there will be a contest. The hon. Gentleman is using the example of Harold Wilson, who stood down as Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members addressed the Chair.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the example of Harold Wilson. Harold Wilson stopped being the Prime Minister, but that will not happen in this case. If there was no debate in 1976, we do not need a debate now. Labour Members have said for the past hour or so that they regard this matter as more important than the final stages of the Crown Agents Bill, but it is clear from the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that they do not have a leg to stand on.
I want to answer one question that was put earlier in the debate. It is wrong to argue that the hon. Member for Newham, South has not been reselected because his

529
constituency has changed. The fact that he has not been selected for the new constituency is something that happens in the Labour party quite often.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Ann Jones.
6.33 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I know that it is the Wimbledon season, but tennis is not oneof my talents.
I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we should adjourn the debate. I do so because of the totally unprecedented events that we have witnessed in the past hour and a half. I do not think that the public or hon. Members would understand if we were to continue with the affairs of this place as if nothing untoward had happened.
We are in a very unusual position. The House is sitting this evening, but tomorrow it is a non-sitting constituency Friday and it will not be possible to discuss any matters then—no doubt the Prime Minister took that into account when he made his decision. There is provision in the Standing Orders for the House to sit tomorrow, or on Saturday and Sunday should that prove necessary. The Government have the power to request Madam Speaker to recall Parliament, and that option is clearly open to them.
Conservative Members seem somewhat reticent when it comes to discussing the implications of the Prime Minister's decision. That seems rather strange to those of us who believe that the whole country is interested in what is going on and does not regard it as an internal matter for the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has now left the Chamber, accused my colleagues of demeaning Parliament by raising the subject. I think that the Prime Minister demeans Parliament when he makes statements of such importance outside the House and then ensures that no statement is made in this place.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The public will think it very strange that the Prime Minister stood at the Government Dispatch Box at 3·15 this afternoon and gave no indication that he was about to make an announcement of major national importance.
Mrs. Taylor: That proves that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his own position within the Conservative party than he is about respecting the rights of this House as a democratic body. His first responsibility should have been to hon. Members from all political parties who represent the people of this country. That was the Prime Minister's first and most significant mistake.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not another more profound and worrying point? It is not the interests of the Conservative party that the Prime Minister is seeking to serve, but his own interests. Even if he were to win a leadership contest, what essential feature would change? The Conservative party would be exactly as it was and the divisions on Europe would remain. There might be a temporary respite for the Prime Minister—he may gain something—but the Conservative party would not win anything and certainly this country would lose as a result of that process.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct. Today's events are the first in what could be a very long saga that
530
will certainly continue to the next election. The divisions within the Conservative party, which have led to those events, will not go away simply because of a leadership contest—regardless of who wins—because those divisions are too deep.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Will my hon. Friend reflect on two issues? First, there is the constitutional issue. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was asked by Her Majesty to form a Government on the basis that he was the leader of the majority party. He no longer holds that position. Is it not appropriate that he should go to the Queen?
Secondly, if the office of leader of the Conservative party is divorced from that of Prime Minister, will my hon. Friend reflect on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who said that it was wholly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to use his office, Downing street and the facilities of the Prime Minister to make an announcement of a party political nature?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's last point is absolutely correct. We shall have to ask what machinery of government was used with regard to the Prime Minister's announcement today. It has been pointed out that when Harold Wilson resigned, he did so from his party headquarters; he did not use public resources. That was the honourable thing to do. Furthermore, he did not stand in a leadership contest; he stood down permanently. Questions must be asked about how much this exercise has cost. It shows that the Prime Minister does not know the difference between his responsibilities as leader of the Conservative party and his responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country.
Mr. Skinner: There is another very intriguing problem, inasmuch as we know that there is now no leader of the Tory party. That occurred when the Prime Minister handed his seals of office as Tory party leader to none other than the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M: Fox). He has the title deeds of the Tory party at the moment. Therefore, we may assume that the chairman of the 1922 Committee is in charge of the Tory party until the election is concluded. It is a situation without parallel, when no Tory Minister will come into the Chamber to defend the position. Is it because they are all plotting? I think that it is high time that the Secretary of State for National Heritage came to the Dispatch Box to explain the exact situation.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) raised a few moments ago.
Our current constitutional position is central to our discussions this evening. At the previous election, the Conservative party won a majority in the House and the Prime Minister led a majority Tory Government in the House. The Queen, not the chairman of the Conservative party, sent for the present Prime Minister as the leader of the majority party in Parliament. He commanded a majority at that election. Today, he does not command a majority in the House and certainly would not claim to command a majority in the country. Significant constitutional issues are being raised this evening and it is astonishing that Ministers—who may or may not be sure whether they are still members of the Government—are not willing to explain the position, as they understand it, to the House.
Mr. Winnick: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, although we are debating a matter of great importance to the House of Commons, the Leader of the House, who I assume is in the building, is not here? The right hon. Gentleman always comes to the House on any internal matter. No one could criticise him on that score. There is no sign that he is coming in. Should we take his absence to mean that he could well be a candidate in the leadership election? Has my hon. Friend any information about that?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Leader of the House would normally make a statement. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) pointed out that the Leader of the House will be answering Prime Minister's questions next Tuesday, I am not sure whether we should take that as an indication of his candidature. It is possible, but I understand that the Leader of the House is chairing a meeting of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life that was set up some time ago. I admit that I should be there too, but given the importance of today's events, I thought that I should be in the Chamber to hear what Ministers might have to say about recent developments.
I should inform my hon. Friend that the Select Committee is due to finish its deliberations at 7 o'clock. The Leader of the House may be prepared to come to the House afterwards, to give us the benefit of his advice—and perhaps his inside information—and let us know whether he wishes to make any arrangements for the House to have a full debate on the implications of the Prime Minister's announcement.
Mr. Mackinlay: There is a danger that we are losing sight of the constitutional point, that the Prime Minister received his mandate on the basis that he was leader of the Conservative party. That has been rehearsed two or three times in the Chamber this afternoon. I intervene because the Leader of the House has not come to the Dispatch Box to answer a very important and, I believe, central question. Has the palace been advised and has the palace acquiesced in the interim arrangements? We have a right to know.
If the palace has not been approached, first, it is a discourtesy and secondly, it is arguably constitutionally incorrect. If the palace has been advised and has acquiesced, we have a right to be told. On other occasions when Prime Ministers announced that they would head a caretaker Government pending an election, the monarch as head of state not only acquiesced, but gave her approval. This time we are in a vacuum. We do not know whether the head of state has fulfilled her constitutional duty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are traditionally short and I hope that the House will keep that tradition, even in the more excited atmosphere this evening.
Mrs. Taylor: Interventions should be short, but the House will appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point that he is right to emphasise. It is not just the case that the House is being left uninformed; more importantly, the public are being left uninformed. We have a responsibility to try to make sure that they know what is going on as well as we do. On that basis, my hon. Friend raises a valid point.
532
The other aspect of the constitutional position concerns the authority of the Prime Minister during the leadership election. He has said that he is resigning as Conservative party leader and he will seek re-election, but other candidates may—and some people believe will—enter the field. That means that when he speaks on behalf of Britain in international forums, he speaks with less authority than he would have done had he not decided to follow that course of action.
The Prime Minister told one of my hon. Friends that he will be at the meeting of the European Council in Cannes next Tuesday. What will our international colleagues think and with what authority will the Prime Minister speak on that occasion? Will he speak with the collective support of the Cabinet behind him? Will Cabinet government continue?
Mr. Skinner: There is a near precedent, when Baroness Thatcher was in almost the same position in 1990. She went to France as well. That time it was Paris. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will go trotting off to Cannes without Bernard Ingham at his side to push all the reporters away. I can visualise the plotters on the Tory Benches running slates. There will be opinion polls. I have already been approached because the reporters got it wrong. The ones from The Sunday Times and The Observer were asking me about it. They are now asking all the Tory Members who they are going to vote for, so the whole thing will maximise itself in the next few days, with the result that the Prime Minister will lack total authority. If he takes my advice—and it is not for me to tell him—he should keep away from Cannes.
Mrs. Taylor: The Prime Minister may consider my hon. Friend's advice. I have often noticed that the Prime Minister takes great care to listen to my hon. Friend and he may well be listening now and considering that advice. However, I am not absolutely sure that it is a disadvantage for the Prime Minister not to have Bernard Ingham with him. My hon. Friend is right to say that the power, authority and position of the Prime Minister will certainly be undermined in whatever discussions he has in Cannes. Some time ago, one of his hon. Friends remarked that the Prime Minister was in office but not in power, so today's developments are only bringing to a head problems that have existed for some time. Presumably the Prime Minister has had time to consider his action.
Dr. Godman: May I ask for a misunderstanding to be cleared up? Is it not the case that once the leader of a majority party has been appointed Prime Minister, it is a continuing requirement of his occupancy of No. 10 Downing street that he remains the leader of the majority party?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. He is correct, although in those circumstances the Prime Minister would have to be able to command a majority in the House, however that was cobbled together. From my observations in the House and the mood of the House, it is very unlikely that the present Prime Minister or any of the possible contenders whom we have heard about so far could do that.
The other constitutional point about the authority of the Prime Minister relates to the authority of other Ministers. Clearly, if the Prime Minister is seeking a new internal mandate, there is an implication that, were he to win, he might introduce some changes to his Cabinet. That means

533
that every member of the Cabinet has had his or her authority undermined. Whatever issue a Cabinet Minister takes up, he or she will not be able to guarantee that other events will not ensue. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education have all been mentioned as official candidates in the forthcoming campaign. Sonic people are speculating that the Prime Minister made his announcement today to divert attention from Labour's education policy statement. I am not sure whether that is true. Clarification could come later.
It is clear that discord has overtaken the Government. The Cabinet is disintegrating, as is the Conservative party, before our eyes. Our main concern, however, must be about the impact of the Prime Minister's announcement on the country. What will happen? Will we see a run on the pound? What will happen to the negotiations in Northern Ireland? As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out in his unprecedented letter to The Times, there is a difficult situation. What will happen in respect of Bosnia? The difficulties in Bosnia surely require a Prime Minister and Ministers who can act with authority. We cannot—
Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left the Chamber a few minutes ago to telephone Her Majesty the Queen's assistant private secretary, Robin Janvrin, at Windsor. He said that unlike the occasion when Harold Wilson said that he would trigger an election for leadership of the Labour party, which resulted in Lord Callaghan, as he now is, becoming leader, there has been no statement from the palace. Mr. Janvrin cannot confirm or deny whether there has been consultation with or acquiescence by the head of state about the constitutional hiatus with which we are faced.
It is time that someone from the Government Benches—for example, the Leader of the House—clarified a perfectly proper constitutional point. I hope that you will not mind me pressing this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We could find that the palace is placed in a position in which it is unnecessarily and unfairly embarrassed, as happened constitutionally in Australia in 1975, by people not following proper ground rules and not insisting that those who advise play by the constitutional rule book.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suspect that the hon. Member knew that his point of order had nothing to do with the Chair. It had not.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall he brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
We should concentrate on the constitutional position. It was said earlier—
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for interrupting her. I cannot but notice that the Government Whips are chattering. I am not complaining about that. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, resist any attempt to force a closure? Several hon. Members wish to speak. The suspicion is growing on the Opposition Benches that Government Whips are trying to persuade the Chair that when my hon. Friend concludes
534
her speech and resumes her place, the closure will be moved and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept it. Will you assure us that that will not happen?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot anticipate anything that any hon. Member does. That is one of the challenges of the job.
Mrs. Taylor: It was said earlier that the Queen does not need the advice of the House on matters of this sort. I take issue with that statement. The monarch needs to know who commands a majority in the House. Morality demands more. It requires a Prime Minister who commands a majority in the House and the support and confidence of the country. We need a Prime Minister in whom the House and the country can have confidence. We need a Prime Minister who is competent to govern the country, and that is clearly not the position at present. We need not an internal contest within the Conservative party, but a general election.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now in the Chamber. Are we to take it that we shall have a statement from him about whether he will contest the leadership?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair has no control over who makes statements on the Government Benches.
The House having divided: Ayes 149, Noes 51.

Division No. 173]

[6.54 pm

AYES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Coe, Sebastian

Amess, David

Colvin, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Congdon, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Conway, Derek

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ashby, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Couchman, James

Baldry, Tony

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bates, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Booth, Hartley

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Dunn, Bob

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Dykes, Hugh

Brandreth, Gyles

Elletson, Harold

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Burns, Simon

Faber, David

Burt, Alistair

Fabricant, Michael

Butcher, John

Forman, Nigel

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Forth, Eric

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Chapman, Sydney

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Clappison, James

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

French, Douglas

535

Gallie, Phil

Norris, Steve

Gardiner, Sir George

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Garnier, Edward

Pickles, Eric

Gillan, Cheryl

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Powell, William (Corby)

Gorst, Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Riddick, Graham

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Robathan, Andrew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hawksley, Warren

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Hendry, Charles

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Horam, John

Sims, Roger

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Spencer, Sir Derek

Jack, Michael

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Jenkin, Bernard

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Jessel, Toby

Spink, Dr Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Spring, Richard

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Steen, Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Stern, Michael

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Streeter, Gary

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sweeney, Walter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Legg, Barry

Thomason, Roy

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Lidington, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Luff, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Trend, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

MacKay, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Waller, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waterson, Nigel

Maitland, Lady Olga

Watts, John

Malone, Gerald

Wells, Bowen

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Whitney, Ray

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Whittingdale, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Wilkinson, John

Merchant, Piers

Willetts, David

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Yeo, Tim

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hutton, John

Allen, Graham

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Barnes, Harry

Macdonald, Calum

Battle, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Bayley, Hugh

Madden, Max

Bell, Stuart

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Boateng, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Corbett, Robin

Morley, Elliot

Corbyn, Jeremy

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Mullin, Chris

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Murphy, Paul

Dewar, Donald

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Dowd, Jim

O'Hara, Edward

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foster, Don (Bath)

Pike, Peter L

George, Bruce

Randall, Stuart

Godman, Dr Norman A

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Skinner, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Soley, Clive

536

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Winnick, David

Trimble, David

Vaz, Keith

Tellers for the Noes:

Wallace, James

Ms Estelle Morris and

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question, That the debate be now adjourned, put accordingly and negatived.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 21.

Division No. 174]

[7.07 pm

AYES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Gardiner, Sir George

Amess, David

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Arbuthnot, James

Garnier, Edward

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gillan, Cheryl

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Ashby, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Gorst, Sir John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Baldry, Tony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bates, Michael

Hague, William

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Booth, Hartley

Hawksley, Warren

Boswell, Tim

Hendry, Charles

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Horam, John

Brandreth, Gyles

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hunter, Andrew

Burns, Simon

Jack, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Jenkin, Bernard

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Jessel, Toby

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carrington, Matthew

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Carttiss, Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Chapman, Sydney

Knapman, Roger

Clappison, James

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Coe, Sebastian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Colvin, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Congdon, David

Legg, Barry

Conway, Derek

Leigh, Edward

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lidington, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Luff, Peter

Couchman, James

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

MacKay, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Maitland, Lady Olga

Duncan, Alan

Malone, Gerald

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Dykes, Hugh

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Elletson, Harold

Merchant, Piers

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Faber, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forman, Nigel

Norris, Steve

Forth, Eric

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Foster, Don (Bath)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Pickles, Eric

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

French, Douglas

Rendel, David

Gallie, Phil

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

537

Robathan, Andrew

Temple-Morns, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Thomason, Roy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wallace, James

Sims, Roger

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whitney, Ray

Spink, Dr Robert

Whittingdale, John

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Willetts, David

Steen, Anthony

Yeo, Tim

Stern, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sweeney, Walter

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Dr. Liam Fox.

NOES

Barnes, Harry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Bayley, Hugh

McWilliam, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Madden, Max

Cox, Tom

Pike, Peter L

George, Bruce

Skinner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman A

Soley, Clive

Gordon, Mildred

Spearing, Nigel

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wareing, Robert N

Hutton, John

Winnick, David

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Tellers for the Noes:

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Chris Mullin and

Macdonald. Calum

Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PETITION

  Braley House, Worcester
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I suspect that such ripples as I may have been able to cause on the political waters have been rather overwhelmed by boulders dropped into them elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is my great privilege to present a petition from 1,671 residents and tradesmen in north Worcester concerning Braley house, an approved bail and probation hostel situated at 89 Ombersley road, Worcester.
  The petitioners consider the siting of the hostel inappropriate, accommodating as it does many high-risk persistent offenders in a residential neighbourhood, and are deeply concerned about the consequences, believing that the siting of the hostel will lead to an increase in crime rates in their area.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons instruct the Hereford and Worcester Probation Service to move or close the above named hostel.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Digital Television
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I suspect that today may be remembered as the day that the Prime Minister resigned the leadership of the Conservative party, but there is a footnote—an Adjournment debate—and that will be an important footnote to many people who are concerned about the future of the media and the industries related to them. Indeed, it may bring about an even greater revolution than the one made possible by the resignation of a Prime Minister from the leadership of his party. Whatever the problems of the Conservative party, there is no question that, in the long term, we must deal with some serious problems in respect of television's future, and one of the major changes that will affect television in this country and throughout the world is the advent of digital technology.
  I am pleased to call this debate on digital technology and digital television. It is regrettable that the Government have not taken the chance to arrange a full day's debate on that important topic in the House. In many ways, that shows the irrelevance of this place. Even today, the Prime Minister made an announcement outside this Chamber, holding a press conference before talking to the legislature. That underlines the weakness of the legislature.
  A Government White Paper on digital television has been outstanding for some considerable time—indeed, it has been so throughout the entire tenure of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that he will clearly indicate a date on which the Government will finally publish that White Paper so that, not only we in the House, but people who keenly await that announcement can plan for the future. Sadly, the continuing uncertainty, which seems a characteristic of the Department of National Heritage and of the Secretary of State, must stop so that people can plan, invest, look to the future and undertake this tremendous revolutionary media project of changing our television from an analogue system to a digital system.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will, in the near future, make up his mind and resolve the problems that I understand he has with the Department of Trade and Industry, long before he either moves up or perhaps even out of the Cabinet, depending on whether the Prime Minister has made another blunder or a correct decision.
  There are immense implications for all of us—not only those involved in television industries, but consumers or viewers of the product. Immense potential exists in the changeover to digital transmission. I want also to discuss what an incoming Labour Government need to do to develop the right policy framework to harness the benefits of digital television for the many and not merely the few. I call again on the Secretary of State. If he does not do this job, clearly it will be done by an incoming Labour Government, but I hope that he will publish the White Paper before the summer recess and allocate time so that the important issues involved can be debated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an extremely urgent matter

  539
  because, if there is not a Government initiative, a real danger exists that, for example, the satellite broadcasters might go ahead in the absence of a Government framework, steal a march, and determine the future direction of broadcasting in this country without any steer from Her Majesty's Government? Does he agree that that would be deeply regrettable and adds to his case for the need for urgency on the Government's part?
  Mr. Allen: I hope that satellite, terrestrial and cable broadcasters will all take advantage of the new technology. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. It is for the Government now to act as a co-ordinator of the action necessary to ensure that satellite, cable and terrestrial television programme producers can get their act together with a degree of certainty. The investment levels that are required to make this experiment a success and for it to stick are high. I suspect that even British Sky Broadcasting, with the backing that it enjoys, the British Broadcasting Corporation or the cable companies in this country would be loth to go ahead without some clarification from the Government.
  At present, everyone is in the starting blocks. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a lead and an expertise in this sector which is being dissipated by the Government and particularly byn the Department of National Heritage's delay in publishing the White Paper. I hope that it publishes it without further delay for the benefit of everyone; we will then make the points made eloquently by my hon. Friend.
  We all need to try—I shall try to follow my own edict—to use as few jargon words as possible. It is easy to talk about conditional access and common interfaces, and to use all the rest of the jargon—such as terrestrial and all the junk—which surrounds much of the debate. I guess that digital could be summed up at its simplest in this way: that which currently delivers one channel can be used—the same space can be used—to deliver many channels.
  The beauty of the technology is that it can compress a signal, so where one currently receives one channel, one can use the same space to receive five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 channels—who knows how many channels we will ultimately receive; it depends on how the technology progresses. Put at its simplest, that means that digital television, handled properly and with the right promotion by Government, can benefit both the consumer and producer of television in this country, Europe and throughout the world.
  Provided that we ensure that such channels are not controlled by a single monopoly producer, digital will extend customer choice by enabling terrestrial, cable and satellite systems to offer many more channels than they can currently offer. It will also offer multimedia services and allow telecommunications, broadcasting and information services to be delivered to all sorts of consumers and industry. I hope that, as we gear the technology, it will be available at a reduced cost so that extra costs do not fall directly on the consumer, but are reduced as a product of the technology.
  The technology exists. What is missing is some leadership from the Government. That can be covered by two main points. First, they should set clear ground rules for investment in digital technology and, secondly, they should announce a clear transparent policy on competition issues, so that people feel that they will be given a fair
  540
  crack of the whip when they invest in the multi-million pound operation that is modern-day programming for television. If the Government do not show commitment to that project, if the White Paper staggers out before the recess—I understand that even 13 July may be a favoured date—and if the White Paper is equivocal and unclear, that will send exactly the wrong signals to the rest of the industry. Who will invest millions of pounds if that is the climate in which investment may take place and disappear.
  Mr. Timms: Given that, as my hon. Friend said, digital technology will be adopted by the cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasters, how optimistic is he that they will all introduce the same standard in bringing that technology into use, or is there a danger that different players in the broadcasting industry might adopt different standards and cause considerable damage as a result?
  Mr. Allen: The technical work on introducing similar standards has been done domestically and at European level. It has been a slow and protracted process, but the technical standards are there. What my hon. Friend may regard as a more serious issue—and here I must lapse into jargon—is the conditional access problem about which I shall talk later. I hope that I will be able to explain my jargon more clearly.
  There is no doubt that the British economy will benefit immensely if national manufacturers of digital technology and digital service providers can build upon the comparative advantage that they now have and exploit that in the world marketplace.
  Television and film are not exclusively the province of Hollywood. There is still a thriving, capable and respected television industry in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom. It is a phenomenal asset for this country and we need to ensure that the advantage that it enjoys currently is enhanced by the quick and efficient use of digital technology. Jobs, training, crafts and skills will all be buttressed by early and decisive Government action. More delay will mean that we will not maximise the economic and social opportunities offered by digital technology.
  There are tremendous opportunities. This is not merely for boffins pressing buttons in a television control room. Real advantages could be gained by ordinary people in the community and by the average television viewer. There are opportunities for expanding the variety of television offered nationally and locally. There are opportunities for high-quality television, not necessarily more of the same. Many people complain about the plethora of channels in certain sectors now. There are opportunities for introducing local channels to serve towns and cities.
  One of the darkest blots on the Government's record on broadcasting is that they have consistently failed to encourage local television channels which could deliver local services, local information, training and education on a basis that is relevant to London, Nottingham or Glasgow, or many of the towns and cities throughout the country.
  There are opportunities for providing specialist multi-media services. That is jargon for things such as a specialist channel for disabled people, for shoppers or for local council tax payers dealing with local services and the value for money that they receive. There are opportunities for all of us to access with ease the treasure house of the Internet so that we do not need a PhD in

  541
  physics, chemistry or computer science to operate the machinery to discover many of the wonders as well as many of the dark sides of the Internet.
  There are opportunities for offering exciting new education packages, not just for schools but for homes, so that everyone could benefit from, for example, a specialist geography channel or a language channel. Hopefully, that will be done ultimately on an interactive basis. It would help those who are housebound, not necessarily the elderly or the disabled but young people trapped at home because they are involved in child care or have family commitments. It could help to provide a way out of the home through some form of PCTV which is easily accessible and fun to use.
  There are tremendous opportunities to liberate people rather than to enslave them and tie them to a computer screen, which is how technology is often seen. It could allow access to other people and draw one out of the home and into the community through interaction with real human beings.
  There are fantastic opportunities and one that is particularly dear to me is access to public information. In this instance, I do not mean the work that has been done by Newham council, among others, which has been instrumental in promoting street access. I am talking about feedback, possibly into public policy; helping to empower citizens so that they feel part of the democratic process. That is becoming ever more essential given the way that the House was treated today. The way in which we treat our electorate is equally contemptible. The Government are almost free to do what they wish with no redress for the House or the electorate. We are facing yet another possible change of Prime Minister without the electorate being involved, which is what happened when Baroness Thatcher was turfed out by her party.
  We can do better than that and our politics needs us to do better than that for our country. One of the ways of achieving that is to involve people and make them feel that democracy is theirs. We must let everybody have access to the way in which this place works—or does not work. We should let everyone understand how local authorities work and why we need taxation and public spending. We should let them know what options are available and whether good value for money can be delivered. There are many things in just that one area of democracy which could be fed back to involve citizens in the democratic process.
  Those are the ideals and the tremendous opportunities. It is the responsibility of Parliament and the Government to legislate to protect and promote those ideals. All that is lacking now is some Government imagination, drive and priorities. In lieu of the long-outstanding White Paper, which has still not been delivered by the Department of National Heritage and its Secretary of State, I should like to tell the House what will be the priorities of a Labour Government, when we take office sooner rather than later.
  First, is our commitment to open and fair access. No one should monopolise either the digital highway or the gateways to it. The regulation of access through those gateways is essential for safeguarding fair and free competition in the public interest. Without effective regulation, the owners of those conditional access systems—the gateways into people's homes—which have programming interests of their own, could have the power
  542
  to restrict access to rival broadcasters and to dominate the digital revolution. We must avoid a situation like that which occurred at TV Asia where one satellite gatekeeper had BBC World thrown off the service because the Chinese Government did not approve of its coverage of news items.
  It is imperative that the Government develop a new regulatory approach for the digital age. Any cable company will agree that it does not need favours. Many are happy to see the end of the asymmetry rule now that they have had a full seven years to establish themselves. They do not want any more favours from the Government. They want fairness; above all they want fairness in competition policy and competition rules. Many are not in a position to complain too loudly because their supplier may use their market position against the complainant.
  The Government need to sort out competition policy and competition rules now. If they do not do so, the digital revolution could he strangled at birth. That is one central area in which a new regulatory approach must be made clear.
  The Independent Television Commission proposes something different: licensing the gatekeepers. Its system could ensure that abuses are corrected far more quickly than through the current protracted procedures of the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We need to have a shorter and sharper response when abuses are seen to take place or when allegations of abuse are made. The ITC's proposition deserves a great deal of thought by the Secretary of State. I hope that he will consider it, even if he publishes his White Paper in the very near future.
  Alternatively, Andrew Neil, the gatekeeper turned poacher, if I may use that expression, suggests that we have the brains collectively to devise a single decoder capable of unscrambling all services and, indeed, guaranteeing access to them. So the technological revolution does not end merely with digital technology and digital TV. There may well be more to come. The Labour party needs to make it clear that those who have built systems by their own efforts have a right to their system's security, to a fair return on their enormous investment and to the Government—effectively— defending their interests at national and European level.
  The real issue however is one of vertical integration and the lack of any effective competition policy in the United Kingdom. Last week, the European Parliament amended the draft EC directive on the use of standards for the transmission of signals to ensure that the owners of proprietary technology cannot discriminate against other broadcasters who want to offer services. How did the Conservatives respond? Instead of working constructively with our European partners, and alone among all the European Governments, they tried—and are trying—to block that proposal. Labour members will ensure in government that there is a national and European framework providing security for investors financing the digital infrastructure. In addition, we will encourage the diversity of high-quality domestic broadcast services which will drive the transition to digital.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), in guiding the Broadcasting Bill through the House in 1990, made it very clear that when people are pioneering technology they deserve protection and advantage. There is no other way in which technology can move forward in the modern age, given the size of

  543
  companies. We need to examine—the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt that it was appropriate in 1990—whether the stage of pioneering and innovation has passed and whether a more appropriate and normal competition framework ought to exist for broadcasters, be they satellite, terrestrial or cable. I leave with the Secretary of State the thought that—perhaps—that embryonic phase has gone and the growing and fully fledged children of the past media revolution need to be treated as adults along with every other player.
  The second priority will be to ease the change to all digital terrestrial broadcasting. At the moment everyone at home has an analogue television. At some point in the future everyone at home will have a digital TV. Of course, digital capacity needs to be set aside for existing broadcasters to ensure that their expertise continues to service the needs of nation. Their co-operation will be vital in ensuring that the digital transition takes place. We also need to ensure that new digital capacity is available for new services, to encourage creativity, innovation and the regeneration of the media industry, so that it can not only service domestic consumers but thrive in the competitive world.
  The uncertainty which has characterised Conservative policy and the Department of National Heritage, will be replaced. If policy is not made clear in the White Paper and in the subsequent legislation, it will be made clear by Labour's clarity and the promotion of digitalisation. We need some dates out of the Secretary of State—not merely for those of us in the House, but for those outside too—so that planning and investment can be undertaken in an era of certainty.
  The third priority that we need to underline for an incoming Labour Government is that it is essential to galvanise support in the UK media industry and to support common platforms and objectives as we move toward a digital future. The potential for the UK—I repeat—as a pioneer in the digital age must no longer be squandered by the Department of National Heritage and by the Secretary of State because of the lack of foresight and enthusiasm, or teamwork with the DTI.
  The threat from global competitors cannot be dumped behind protectionism. It must be tackled by the UK media industry with innovation, new services and broadcasting initiatives. The UK's indigenous broadcasting industry has to meet that challenge. Whingeing about BSkyB all the time must be replaced by clear proposals, clear initiatives and, indeed, partnerships in the domestic TV and telephony companies. It is time that the BBC, ITV and BT got their acts together on the digital highway and got their content packages together, rather than merely being content to moan about others who are taking advantage of the developments.
  We must also consider seriously the issue of spectrum allocation. The spectrum is a very valuable resource. Labour will ensure that the fiasco of bidding for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences is not repeated. Quality in a modern media industry and environment must be put ahead of price and not vice versa. The future allocation of digital terrestrial channels—those which are not used for simulcast or incentive channels to involve existing broadcasters—should be available on the basis of bidders paying above a minimum price, which could be set by the ITC. Licences should be allocated thereafter on quality and nature of content only. That is preferable to the channels going to the highest bidder followed by a discussion about quality. Let us seek to do it the other way round.
  544
  If a floor is met, a bid may be allowed, but it should then be assessed entirely on content and quality. That will shift the emphasis on to programmes and put the onus on bidders to detail quality and diversity, including binding commitments to the development of regional and local programming. Let us take this process seriously, rather than repeat the farce of schoolboys pretending to put in bids that many people realised were ridiculously low. I refer to some of the bids for the Channel 3 licence—although some bids were clearly too high—and the fiasco of the bidding for channel 5 some weeks ago.
  The opportunities are truly awesome in the digital age and the free rides are definitely over. Labour will devise a coherent regulatory framework which will respond flexibly to the challenges inherent in the transition to digital television.
  History, unfortunately, will judge that this Government have consistently failed to encourage local television, especially through the cable era. Despite superb work done locally by individual companies—I think of Associated Newspapers and Channel 1, MGM with Live TV, Select TV and Videotron—they have received minimal encouragement from the Government. The big network players—the BBC and the independent television companies—should see local television as an opportunity and not as a threat to their existence. We will explore ways in which to empower the ITC to ensure a strong, local element in a modern, diverse and democratic media. We will ensure that the digital revolution can spawn many local channels. That, again, will be a suitable complement to Labour's devolution of power to the localities, regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
  Sadly, this Government's broadcasting policy has meant that television has been degraded. The words "the media industry" have become synonymous with the petty, risk-free rip-off rather than with dynamic entrepreneurialism. We need the latter, both from Government and the media sector, if we are to reap the social benefits of the digital wonder. Missed opportunities on cross-media ownership and cable regulation, the delay in privacy proposals and the delay in the White Paper on digital television comprise a very poor record for the Government.
  It is time to have done with this tired and uninterested Government and their tired and uninterested Secretary of State for National Heritage. I caught him in the middle of a yawn. Perhaps he should give way now. If he is not interested—he clearly is not—perhaps he should give way now to a Government—and a party—who certainly are.
  7.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I was interested in the timing of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in proposing this debate. I had assumed that, when raising the subject of digital television a matter of weeks before the Government, as is known, are to produce their own proposals on digital television, the hon. Gentleman would come to the House with a clear set of detailed proposals. He is, after all, an Opposition spokesman on the subject. I thought that he would set out clearly to the House what the Opposition think the Government should be doing about the various issues that we face when dealing with the introduction of digital television.

  545
  I had intended to apologise to the House in my introduction by saying that although the hon. Gentleman had set out a detailed blueprint which clearly explained how he felt that the questions about digital television should he answered, I would have to crave the indulgence and understanding of the House for my inability to respond in detail given that the Government were known to be in the final stages of considering their policy on the matter. I thought that I should have to ask the House to wait a few weeks before I could respond in the detail that the hon. Gentleman used when presenting his proposals, but it has to be said that that element of my speech is redundant because the hon. Gentleman did not present any details about what the Opposition propose to do about digital television. Indeed, he offered the House only the inanities and clichés that I can offer the House, given that I cannot yet talk about a completed policy.
  The hon. Gentleman's timing is interesting. He initiated the debate to call the Government to account for not having produced a policy—which the Government have said they are about to produce—and threw away an opportunity, which was wide open and was of his creation, to say what his policy is for dealing with the subject.
  Mr. Allen rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I give way in keen anticipation that the hon. Gentleman might be about to fill the gap.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon into his speech. The difference between my inanities and his is that mine come from a Back Bencher and his come from the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
  Mr. Dorrell: My inanities come from a Minister who is known to the whole world to be in the final stages of considering policy on the matter. I do not think that anyone else in the world—perhaps the hon. Gentleman expects this—including all hon. Members, would expect a Minister called to a debate on the initiative of a single hon. Member, on the Adjournment, to use the occasion to announce the Government's policy. Indeed, if I were to do that, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, not to mention the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, and all hon. Members who are interested in the subject would properly take me to task for having announced the Government's policy in an underhand way to a deserted House late on a Thursday night. That does not seem to be a sensible way in which to proceed. I propose to confine myself to the level of detail that the hon. Gentleman offered the House.
  Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman has two hours.
  Mr. Dorrell: I might not be able to respond in detail on our policy on digital television but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, I have two hours. I do not propose, any more than the hon. Gentleman did, to take up all that time. I propose to confine myself to the level of detail that he gave.
  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the opportunities of digital. The introduction of digital technology allows us the opportunity to broaden the
  546
  choice available to viewers and to give a broader range of television services, both broadcasting and information services, to viewers. It allows us to exploit the opportunities of new technology. That is indisputable and it is a simple proposition which will, I am sure, underlie the detailed policy proposals with which the Opposition will come forward in the fullness of time and which will underlie the Government's detailed proposals.
  Digital technology allows us to offer not only a broader range of choice to viewers but, in some important respects, quality enhancement. Wide-screen television, for example, will be made possible by the technology of digital. That is one of the opportunities that we see when we look forward to a digital broadcasting world. There will be more choice for viewers and a wider range of enhanced, technical quality services. That is all made possible by this new technology. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress those opportunities to the House.
  The hon. Gentleman is also right to stress the opportunity that digital technology offers in terms of business opportunities. There are business opportunities for hardware producers and for the producers of receiving sets and transmission equipment. There are opportunities for the hardware exploitation of digital technology and there are business opportunities for programme makers. The business opportunities for hardware makers build on a considerable British success story in recent years. In 1994, we manufactured 5 million receivers—more than the total of France and Germany combined.
  I just cast my mind back to the dying days of the previous Labour Government. No Conservative spokesman would have dared to claim that, under a Conservative Government, the television industry would be transformed into one that produced twice as many sets as were produced in France and Germany and that a Conservative Government would, at the same time, turn a balance of payments deficit in such trade into a balance of payments surplus of £400 million, because that claim would have been so far removed from the world that we inherited. During the past 16 years, we have transformed this industrial sector. The transformation is a success story on which we plan to build in the digital world which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, presents important business opportunities to us.
  Mr. Allen: It has crossed my mind that, in the dark days of the previous Labour Government, we had a British television industry. That was before two thirds of British manufacturing industry was eliminated during the dark years of Thatcherism and Majorism.
  Mr. Dorrell: That observation does not correspond with any of the facts that anyone who works in the industry would recognise. The industry has been transformed, as have many other industries, by the fact that Britain is now what Mr. Delors used to call a paradise for Japanese investment. We have turned the country into one that welcomes foreign investment and sees the opportunities presented by foreign technology and foreign companies that will employ British people and create wealth and jobs here. That is how the television and other industries have been transformed, and it is a success story on which we have every intention of building.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the introduction of digital technology creates more opportunities for programme makers to make the programmes that will

  547
  provide consumer choice. He is right to draw attention to that as a consequence of the introduction of digital technology.
  We must ensure that, as the range of choice for viewers broadens, we also have in Britain the best environment that we can create and that the more channels there are, the more there is an environment here in which programme makers can make programmes to fill up the greater number of channels available in the digital world. That is the shared analysis of what the technology makes possible. The hon. Gentleman put forward that view, and he was right; the Government share it. In our own time, a few weeks from now, we shall make detailed proposals about how we intend to ensure that the opportunities are taken.
  It is not true to say that the White Paper has been delayed. Ever since I became Secretary of State I have said that the first priority in dealing with the broadcasting sector and the more general media sector was ownership in the existing media world. If I had published a White Paper on digital technology without having dealt with media ownership first, people would have found it difficult to follow.
  Indeed, it would have been difficult to write a White Paper without setting it in the context of a broader media ownership policy. There has never been any secret about that. We made our proposals on media ownership just before the spring recess, and I made it clear then that that was volume one, as it were, and that volume two, on the exploitation of digital technology, would follow in a few weeks' time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that remains the position.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State talk specifically about the problems connected with competition policy? I understand that he has been talking to the Department of Trade and Industry. The competition framework is causing concern, especially to the cable companies, in relation to the programmes that they are allowed to broadcast over their systems. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when the White Paper is published, it will appear with the full consent of the DTI and refer to the way in which competition policy will be used in the media industries and in the digital future?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asked me two straight questions, and the answer to both is yes. The White Paper will be agreed with the DTI because it will be a Government paper. Of course it will deal with the competition issues related to conditional access and to the rest of the digital sector, because to do so is part of the delivery of a policy for that sector.
  548
  As I have made clear to the House, I shall not offer a detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions about conditional access, any more than I shall to the other questions that he posed, partly because he himself did not offer a detailed blueprint. He simply said that those were important issues. Of course he is right, and when the Government make our proposals we shall reveal the importance that we attach to clear answers to those questions.
  Our White Paper will set out clear proposals to ensure that we have in Britain an environment conducive to the continued expansion of the hardware sector. We shall set out clearly the terms for licence allocation in the digital television sector and the terms for ownership regulation in that sector. It will cover those issues because that will be necessary if we are to realise the opportunities that digital television offers.
  Mr. Timms: I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to comment in advance of the White Paper on one related, but more specific, point. Can he tell the House what the Government's view is on the initiatives to produce a common European standard for the digital interface for broadcasting? Do they support that initiative? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in some parts of the United Kingdom broadcasting industry, there is concern that proprietary standards might be introduced. That would be damaging in terms of the competition policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned. What is the Government's attitude towards the introduction of a common European standard?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is indeed an issue that is under discussion in the institutions in Brussels. Our position at the various stages of those discussions has been made clear. In so far as the matter relates to the exploitation of digital television technology from the point of view of producers and consumers, especially consumers, we shall cover it when we publish the White Paper.
  However, I shall not be drawn now into detailed answers to the questions that we shall deal with then. If I answered half a question now, another half question would be raised, and we would soon find ourselves in a country in which some of the questions, but not all of them, had already been asked and answered. All the questions cannot be answered now—if they had been, we would already have published our White Paper.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Centres
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the interdisciplinary research centres were last reviewed; and if he will make a stateme nt. [29860]

  Mr. Horam
  A list of the interdisciplinary research centres is as shown, indicating when they were last reviewed. Reviews are conducted by the funding research councils, as part of each council's normal funding review programme and according to each council's normal monitoring and evaluation review processes.

  Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IRCs) and Their Last Review

  Funding body

  Title

  Location

  Last review date

  BBSRC

  BBSRC IRC for Biochemical Engineering

  UCL

  March 1995

  BBSRC

  Centre for Genome Research

  Edinburgh

  October 1993

  BBSRC

  Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences (Joint EPSRC/MRC)

  Oxford

  October 1992

  BBSRC

  Sussex Centre for Neuroscience

  Sussex

  July 1993

  MRC

  Research Centre in Brain and Behaviour

  Oxford

  —

  MRC

  Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology

  UCL

  —

  MRC

  Centre for Mechanisms of Human Toxicity

  Leicester

  —

  MRC

  Cambridge Centre for Protein Engineering

  Cambridge

  May 1994

  MRC

  Institute of Molecular Medicine

  Oxford

  —

  MRC

  IRC in Brain Repair

  Cambridge

  —

  NERC

  Centre for Population Biology

  Imperial

  April 1993

  EPSRC

  Optoelectronics

  Southampton

  April 1994

  EPSRC

  Semi-conductor Materials

  Imperial/UCL/ Oxford/Sheffield

  April 1994

  EPSRC

  Superconductivity

  Cambridge

  April 1995

  EPSRC

  Materials for High Performance Applications

  Birmingham/Swansea

  April 1994

  EPSRC

  Surface Science

  Liverpool/Manchester

  April 1993

  EPSRC

  Process Systems Engineering

  Imperial/UCL

  August 1993

  EPSRC

  Polymer Science and Technology

  Leeds/Bradford /Durham

  March 1994

  ESRC

  Research Centre on Micro Social Change in Britain

  Essex

  May 1993

  ESRC

  Human Communication Research Centre

  Edinburgh/Glasgow

  May 1993

  ESRC

  Centre for Economic Performance

  LSE

  February 1995

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the interdisciplinary research centres in order of date of establishment; and what plans he has to review or extend them. [29861]
  324
  Mr. Horam
  The interdisciplinary research centres are as listed, in order of date of establishment, showing next planned review dates. These reviews, which are part of the research councils' normal evaluation and review processes, include consideration for extending funding.

  Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IRCs) and their Next Planned Review Dates

  Funding body

  Title

  Date of establishment

  Next planned review date

  EPSRC

  Superconductivity

  1987

  —

  EPSRC

  Surface Science

  1988

  in progress

  BBSRC

  Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences (Joint EPSRC/MRC)

  1988

  1996–97

  EPSRC

  Semi-conductor Materials

  1988

  October 1995

  EPSRC

  Polymer Science and Technology

  1989

  1996

  ESRC

  Human Communication Research Centre

  1989

  September 1997

  ESRC

  Research Centre on Micro Social Change in Britain

  1989

  September 1997

  EPSRC

  Optoelectronics

  1989

  1996

  EPSRC

  Process Systems Engineering

  1989

  December 1995

  EPSRC

  Materials for High Performance Applications

  1989

  1996

  NERC

  Centre for Population Biology

  1989

  April 1998

  MRC

  Institute of Molecular Medicine

  1989

  October 1995

  BBSRC

  Centre for Genome Research

  1990

  1997

  ESRC

  Centre for Economic Performance

  1990

  September 1998

  MRC

  Cambridge Centre for Protein Engineering

  1990

  1998–99

  BBSRC

  Sussex Centre for Neuroscience

  1991

  1997

  EPSRC

  Biomedical Materials

  1991

  1996

  MRC

  Research Centre in Brain and Behaviour

  1991

  March 1996

  BBSRC

  BBSRC IRC for Biochemical Engineering

  1991

  1999

  MRC

  IRC in Brain Repair

  1992

  1996–97

  MRC

  Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology

  1993

  1995–96

  MRC

  Centre for Mechanisms of Human Toxicity

  1993

  1997–98

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to resist the intervention of the European Union directly or indirectly in the military situation in the former Yugoslavia. [29946]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The EU has no military role in the former Yugoslavia. Forces from EU member states are there under UN and not EU mandates.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has to what proportion of atrocities in former Yugoslavia have been committed by each party. [29947]

  Mr. Hogg
  It is generally regarded, by the UN and other humanitarian organisations, that the Serbs have committed most of the atrocities. However, all parties have been responsible for acts of this kind. We
  325
  condemn all human rights abuses and atrocities committed in the course of the conflict.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent his policy in the former Yugoslavia has been influenced by religious considerations. [29951]

  Mr. Hogg
  Not at all.

  Obscene Publications
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is meeting its obligations under the agreement and convention for the suppression of the circulation of obscene publications; and what steps he is taking to ensure future compliance. [30020]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1910 agreement requires contracting states to designate an authority to co-ordinate information and communicate it, where appropriate, to the authorities in other countries. In the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary is the designated authority.

  The 1923 convention encourages signatories to introduce domestic and import legislation to curb the trade in obscene publications. The UK meets its main obligations under the convention through the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 and the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the work of his Department in the field of child abduction over the past year; and what work is planned in the year ahead. [30389]

  Mr. Baldry
  We provide support to families in 75 cases worldwide. We initiated an EU demarche urging a range of countries to sign up to the Hague and European conventions. We raised child abduction at the 50th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights and in an EU presidency statement to the Commission on Human Rights. We maintained our funding and commitment to Reunite, the national council for abducted children. We held two meetings with the all-party parliamentary group. We work closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  In the year ahead we shall continue to press foreign Governments to sign the conventions and to support the families of abducted children.

  Nuclear Tests (France)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he is making(a) through the EU and (b) unilaterally to persuade the French Government not to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific; what representations he has received from (i) New Zealand, (ii) Australia, (iii) other Commonwealth countries o this issue; and if he will make a statement. [30175]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have received representations from a number of Commonwealth Governments, including those of Australia and New Zealand, expressing concern over the French decision to suspend their moratorium on nuclear testing. We understand that 326
  concern, but do not believe that a strictly limited programme of tests need affect the prospects for the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty, which remains our and the international community's main priority.

  Anti-personnel Land Mines
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to introduce controls on the production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines apart from the recent extension of the moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines from the Untied Kingdom. [31032]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have been working with the Untied States for some time on ideas for regulating the production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel land mines. I am pleased to announce that we and the United States have reached agreement on proposals for a land mine control programme. These will be discussed at an international meeting in Budapest, Hungary, on 29 and 30 June at which a number of European countries and others from key regions will be represented. Our aim is to reduce the dangers to civilians from anti-personnel land mines, by seeking international agreement to effective controls.

  I shall place a summary of the proposed programme in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision has been made to make payments to certain beneficiaries of the Gibraltar social insurance fund. [31078]

  Mr. Baldry
  Pending agreement with the Government of Gibraltar on distribution of the assets of the fund, provision has been made for further interim payments to the value of £2 million in the current financial year, following the full draw-down of payments made available to the fund in 1989. Provision for these payments has been made within class II, vote 5.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make it his policy that the passports of wards of court and other children at risk of child abduction be endorsed with details of relevant court orders. [30393]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Consideration is currently being given by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office to the question of the endorsement of the passports of children at risk of child abduction. It is not possible at this stage to indicate the likely outcome of this process.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the work of his Department in the field of child abduction over the past year; and what work is anticipated in the year ahead. [30387]

  Mr. Taylor
  The child abduction unit within my Department carries out work relating to the Hague
  327
  convention on child abduction and the European custody convention. In 1994 the unit dealt with 323 new cases, an increase of 18 per cent. on those received in 1993. A further rise in work load is anticipated in the year ahead.

  District Judges
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many days each of the full-time Liverpool district judges, formerly registrars, have been absent in each of the last 10 years for which the information is available. [28925]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Alton, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of days each Liverpool district judge has been absent.
  I should explain that each district judge is expected to sit between 215 and 220 days each year. This includes sitting at a court centre and other official business, such as training and conferences. The table provided in PQ 95/605 shows that in 1993 and 1994 the full-time district judges at Liverpool exceeded the number of days they are expected to sit each year. In these circumstances, it is therefore inappropriate to refer to absences.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what procedure should be followed by persons who wish the Lord Chancellor to be apprised of matters which are or may be relevant to the exercise of his powers to remove from office or otherwise discipline district judges; [28943]

  (2) what powers the Lord Chancellor has to remove district judges from office or otherwise discipline them. [28940]

  Mr. Taylor
  Under the provisions of the County Courts Act 1984 the Lord Chancellor has power to remove a district judge from office on account of misbehaviour or on account of the district judge's inability to perform the duties of his or her office. The Lord Chancellor is unable to comment on, or intervene in, judicial decisions or the conduct of legal proceedings by a judge. The appropriate recourse in relation to such matters is through the appellate process provided by statute. Persons wishing to make a complaint about the conduct of any member of the judiciary should write to the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which full-time Liverpool district judges, formerly registrars, have sat in the Liverpool district of the High Court and Liverpool county court in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. [28934]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Alton, dated 22 June 1995:
  328
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the district judges at Liverpool.

  The full-time district judges who have sat at Liverpool in the past ten years are as follows:

  1985

  Morris-Jones

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Harrison

  Harris

  Richardson1

  1986

  Morris-Jones

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Richardson1

  Wolfson1

  1987

  Morris-Jones

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  McCullagh

  Richardson1

  Wolfson1

  1988

  Morris-Jones

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  McCullagh

  Richardson1

  Wolfson1

  1989

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  McCullagh

  Travers

  Richardson1

  Wolfson1

  1990

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  McCullagh

  329

  Travers

  Richardson1

  Wolfson1

  1991

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Wolfson

  Knopf

  Richardson1

  McCullagh1

  Travers1

  Bennett1

  1992

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Wolfson

  Knopf

  Richardson1

  McCullagh1

  Travers1

  Bennett1

  1993

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Wolfson

  Knopf

  Richardson1

  McCullagh1

  Travers1

  Bennett1

  Johnson1

  1994

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Wolfson

  Knopf

  McCullagh1

  Travers1

  Bennett1

  Johnson1

  Frost1

  330
  1995

  Grundy

  Berkson

  Wilkinson

  Gee

  Harris

  Wolfson

  Knopf

  McCullagh1

  Travers1

  Bennett1

  Johnson1

  Frost1

  1 Sitting part-time at Liverpool and part-time at other court centres on the Liverpool Group.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much remuneration has been paid to each full-time Liverpool district judge, formerly registrar,in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. [28935]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Alton dated 22 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about how much remuneration has been paid to the Liverpool district judges.
  As you will appreciate specific details about individual judge's salaries are confidential. However I am able to provide you with a list of pay scales for district judges from 1 November 1984 to 1 April 1995. These are as follows:

  £

  1 November 1984

  28,500

  1 July 1985

  29,925

  1 March 1986

  30,500

  1 July 1986

  31,850

  1 April 1987

  33,204

  1 October 1987

  33,500

  1 April 1988

  34,840

  1 October 1988

  37,500

  1 April 1989

  39,400

  1 April 1990

  41,750

  1 January 1991

  43,450

  1 April 1991

  46,700

  1 August 1991

  48,200

  1 December 1991

  49,100

  1 April 1992

  52,520

  1 April 1993

  54,035

  1 April 1994

  56,974

  1 April 1995

  59,327

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much time each full-time Liverpool district judge, formerly registrar, has spent(a) sitting, (b) on other business and (c) in total in his capacity as a district judge in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. [28936]
  331
  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Alton, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about how much time the Liverpool district judges have spent sitting and on other business in the past ten years.
  I should explain that information is available only for the past three years. The following tables show for each year since 1993 the number of days each full-time district judge at Liverpool has spent sitting and on other official business, such as training and conferences. You have also asked for the annual total amount of time each district judge has spent in his official capacity. This figure, which also includes annual leave and sick leave, is given in the final column of each table.

  1993

  Name

  Sitting

  Other business

  Total

  Grundy

  178.5

  51

  249.5

  Berkson

  192.5

  45

  248.5

  Wilkinson

  179.5

  47

  248.5

  Gee

  219

  13

  249.5

  Harris

  213.5

  8.5

  248.5

  Wolfson

  207.5

  6

  248.5

  Knopf

  207.5

  21

  249.5

  Richardson1

  21

  0

  21

  McCullagh1

  87.5

  9

  100.5

  Travers1

  44

  2

  48

  Bennett1

  7

  0

  7

  Johnson1

  37

  1

  39

  1 Figures refer to part-time sittings at Liverpool. These full-time district judges also sit at other court centres in the Liverpool Group.

  1994

  Name

  Sitting

  Other business

  Total

  Grundy

  168.5

  49

  249.5

  Berkson

  183.5

  40

  249.5

  Wilkinson

  175.5

  27.5

  243

  Gee

  213.5

  9

  255.5

  Harris

  209.5

  13

  251.5

  Wolfson

  191.5

  6

  248.5

  Knopf

  227.5

  11

  260.5

  McCullagh1

  84.5

  5

  99.5

  Travers1

  42

  0

  46

  Bennett1

  44

  3

  49

  Johnson1

  164

  6.5

  198.5

  Frost1

  50

  0

  58

  1 Figures refer to part-time sittings at Liverpool. These full-time district judges also sit at other court centres in the Liverpool Group.

  1995 (up to end May)

  Name

  Sitting

  Other business

  Total

  Grundy

  68

  9

  79

  Berkson

  79.5

  10

  101.5

  Wilkinson

  73.5

  13

  101.5

  Gee

  91

  3

  101.5

  Harris

  86.5

  3

  101.5

  Wolfson

  82.5

  3

  101.5

  Knopf

  86.5

  3.5

  106

  332

  1995 (up to end May)

  Name

  Sitting

  Other business

  Total

  McCullagh1

  32.5

  4.5

  40.5

  Travers1

  16.5

  0

  18

  Bennet1

  16.5

  0

  20

  Johnson1

  74.5

  3.5

  82.5

  Frost1

  34

  1

  42

  1 Figures refer to part-time sittings at Liverpool. These full-time district judges also sit at other court centres in the Liverpool Group.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what public expense other than in terms of remuneration has been incurred in respect of maintaining the full-time district judges at Liverpool including the costs or relative proportion thereof(a) buildings, (b) equipment, (c) support staff, (d) pensions and national insurance and (e) other expenses in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. [28937]

  Mr. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Alton, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of maintaining district judges at Liverpool.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints have been made about or against full-time Liverpool district judges, formerly registrars, to (i) the Lord Chancellor in person and (ii) the Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. [28939]

  Mr. Taylor
  Records relating to complaints about the conduct of district judges have been kept only since 1992. They are broken down into the following categories: (i) complaints made to the Lord Chancellor via a Member of Parliament and (ii) complaints from all other sources. No complaints are recorded under the first category. Under the second, the figures are as follows:

  1992: 2

  1993: 1

  1994: 5

  1995 (part): 1

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what documentation or other evidence must be produced by a district judge to the Lord Chancellor's Department to substantiate or justify his absence through illness. [28938]

  Mr. Taylor
  District judges are expected to notify the Department of any sickness absence within 24 hours of the first day of incapacity and to follow this up with a self-certificate for absences of seven days or less. A doctor's statement is required for absences exceeding seven days.

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give for each year since 1979–80 and by each legal aid group or area the total number of legal aid certificates for civil claims involving(a) personal injury claims and (b) mucous membrane disease. [28927]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of certificates issued in respect of personal injury claims in each year since 1990–91, the first year for which these figures are available, is as follows:

  1990–91: 61,351

  1991–92: 82,102

  1992–93: 92,071

  1993–94: 81,550

  1994–95: 87,809

  It is not possible to break these figures down by legal aid area, nor is it possible to identify separately certificates issued in respect of mucous membrane disease.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give for each year since 1979–80 and by each legal aid group or area the total number of appeals against the withdrawal of legal aid certificates for civil claims involving(a) personal injury claims and (b) mucous membrane disease. [28928]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.
  334
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost of civil legal aid excluding matrimonial and family proceedings for personal injury claims and mucous membrane disease for each legal aid group or area. [28929]

  Mr. Taylor
  The average cost of civil legal aid bills in personal injury cases in 1994–95 by legal aid board area was:

  £

  London

  4,724.68

  South Eastern

  3,721.27

  Southern

  3,923.94

  South Western

  3,510.97

  South Wales

  1,971.24

  West Midland

  2,203.33

  East Midland

  2,660.46

  Eastern

  3,441.09

  Northern

  1,695.75

  North Eastern

  2,584.09

  North Western

  2,609.15

  Chester and North Wales

  2,473.23

  Merseyside

  1,744.52

  All offices

  2,712.71

  The information requested in respect of mucous membrane disease is not separately identifiable on the legal aid board's computer systems and, therefore, it is not possible to provide separate figures for that category of case.

TREASURY

  Rent-a-room Tax
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of extending the rent-a-room tax allowance to all tenanted property. [28883]

  Sir George Young
  The rent-a-room scheme was introduced in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992. It applies to individual owner occupiers and tenants who let furnished accommodation in their only or main home.

  Under this scheme gross annual rents from this sort of letting which do not exceed £3,250 per annum for one qualifying individual, or £1,625 per annum; for more than one, are exempt from tax altogether. Individuals who receive income which exceeds £3,250, or £1,625, in a year are able to choose between paying tax on it in the ordinary way—that is on the balance of gross receipts after actual expenses—or paying tax only on the amount by which their gross receipts exceed £3,250, or £1,625, without any relief for actual expenses.

  The annual cost of extending the rent-a-room allowance to all individual landlords of tenanted property would be £250 million, without allowing for any behavioural effects which would increase the cost.

  Visitor Accommodation (VAT)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the rate of VAT which is chargeable on visitor accommodation in each of the EU member states; and what is his estimate of the net loss to the Treasury if a level of eight per cent. VAT were applicable in the United Kingdom to such accommodation. [29925]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is in the tables. No figures for VAT from hotels and holiday accommodation are available.

  VAT on holiday accommodation in the EC

  Country

  Rate Per cent.

  Austria

  20

  Belgium

  16, 20.5

  Denmark

  25

  Finland

  22

  France2

  5.5

  Germany

  15

  Greece

  8

  Ireland

  12.5

  Italy

  9,319

  Luxembourg

  15

  Netherlands

  6

  Portugal4

  5,(4)

  Spain

  7

  Sweden

  12

  United Kingdom

  517.5 (5)

  Notes:

  1 6 per cent. applies to hotels and camp sites.

  2 The following rates apply generally in Corsica: 0.9 per cent., 2.1 per cent., 8 per cent., and 13 per cent.

  3 The standard rate of 19 per cent. applies to luxury hotels.

  4 The rates in brackets apply in the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores Archipelagoes.

  5 The 5 per cent. in the UK applies to hotel accommodation in the Isle of Man as from 1 October 1994.

  336

  VAT on holiday accommodation in the EC

  Country

  Rate Per cent.

  Austria

  10

  Belgium

  6

  Denmark

  25

  Finland

  22

  France1

  5.5

  Germany

  15

  Greece

  8

  Ireland

  12.5

  Notes:

  1 The following rates apply generally in Corsica 0.9 per cent., 2.1 per cent., 8 per cent. and 13 per cent.

  2 Standard rate of 19 per cent. applies to luxury hotels.

  3 The rates in brackets apply in Madeira and the Azores Archipelagoes.

  4 The 5 per cent. rate shown for UK applies to hotel accommodation in the Isle of Man as from 1 October 1994.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current tax reliefs and exemptions available for company cars; and what was the cost of such reliefs and exemptions in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [30095]

  Sir George Young
  The discounts, for business mileage and for older cars, from the tax charge on the benefit of private use of a company car are regarded as part of the charging structure, rather than as specific exemptions. The exemption for car accessories for the disabled, introduced in the Finance Act 1995, is expected to have negligible cost for 1995–96.

  Business Ratepayers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals lodged by business ratepayers are still waiting to be dealt with for each district valuers office in England and Wales. [29903]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is given in the following tables:

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 National summary

  Region

  Total

  Central

  72,674

  East

  56,734

  London

  65.565

  North

  53,724

  South

  43,612

  West (western only)

  22,640

  Total England

  314,949

  Wales only

  10,690

  Total England and Wales

  325,639

  337

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Central Region

  Local office

  Total

  Birmingham

  6,476

  Bolton

  3,010

  Burnley

  3,500

  Chester

  2,178

  Coventry

  3,117

  Crewe

  3,631

  Kidderminster

  3,355

  Lancaster

  4,314

  Lichfield

  2,686

  Liverpool

  3,950

  Manchester

  4,053

  Preston

  1,962

  Rochdale

  2,869

  Salford

  4,423

  Sandwell

  1,852

  Shrewsbury

  2,132

  Stockport

  5,107

  Stoke

  3,125

  Warrington

  3,626

  Warwick

  2,306

  Wolverhampton

  1,921

  Worcester

  3,081

  Regional total

  72,674

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 East Region

  Local Office

  Total

  Bedford

  2,716

  Cambridge

  2,403

  Chelmsford

  5,514

  Colchester

  4,922

  Derby

  4,014

  Grimsby

  2,575

  Ipswich

  2,887

  Leicester

  3,777

  Lincoln

  2,536

  Loughborough

  2,479

  Mansfield

  3,147

  Northampton

  2,466

  Norwich

  3,425

  Nottingham

  3,526

  Peterborough

  3,861

  St. Albans

  3,732

  Stevenage

  2,754

  Regional total

  56,734

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 London Region

  Local office

  Total

  Barking

  2,177

  Bromley

  3,298

  Camden

  2,654

  City

  7,484

  Ealing

  2,839

  Enfield

  6,104

  Greenwich

  3,114

  Harrow

  6,069

  Islington

  6,293

  Kensington

  3,264

  Lambeth

  3,972

  Redbridge

  2,593

  Tower Hamlets

  3,533

  Westminster

  6,295

  338

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 London Region

  Local office

  Total

  Wimbledon

  4,561

  LSU

  1,315

  Regional total

  65,565

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 North Region

  Local office

  Total

  Alnwick

  1,624

  Bradford

  3,216

  Carlisle

  1,733

  Doncaster

  5,237

  Durham

  4,265

  Halifax

  5,589

  Harrogate

  2,521

  Hull

  3,485

  Leeds

  4,239

  Middlesbrough

  3,505

  Newcastle

  4,059

  Sheffield

  5,006

  Sunderland

  4,005

  Ulverston

  2,183

  York

  3,057

  Regional total

  53,724

  Number of rating appeals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 South Region

  Local office

  Total

  Aylesbury

  3,117

  Basingstoke

  1,622

  Bournemouth

  1,807

  Brighton

  2,676

  Chatham

  3,045

  Dorchester

  1,637

  Eastbourne

  2,014

  Folkestone

  1,474

  Guildford

  2,579

  Oxford

  2,506

  Portsmouth

  2,350

  Portsmouth (IOW)

  585

  Reading

  3,653

  Reigate

  4,469

  Southampton

  2,953

  Swindon

  1,605

  Turnbridge Wells

  3,648

  Worthing

  1,872

  Regional total

  43,612

  Number of Rating Appeals Outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Wales and West Region

  Local office

  Total

  Bangor

  1,089

  Barnstaple

  1,376

  Bath

  1,902

  Bristol

  3,086

  Cardiff

  2,454

  Carmarthen

  1,848

  Exeter

  2,337

  Gloucester

  2,539

  Merthyr Tydfil

  871

  Newport

  1,233

  Plymouth

  2,463

  339

  Number of Rating Appeals Outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Wales and West Region

  Local office

  Total

  St. Austell

  6,071

  Swansea

  1,795

  Taunton

  2,866

  Wrexham

  1,400

  Regional total

  33,330

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise staff were responsible for processing arms exports for each year since 1979. [29333]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Customs' control of arms exports is integrated into general export procedures. It is not possible separately to identify numbers of staff engaged in processing any particular type of export consignments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps are being taken to increase the amount of recycling of all types of waste product by the Houses of Parliament.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The policy of the two Houses is to recycle all waste matter which can reasonably be segregated and recycled. The process is audited to ensure compliance with the Palace's waste collection contract. Waste which is unsuitable for recycling is taken to an authorised landfill site for disposal. Further segregation before collection is precluded by space and staffing constraints.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28550]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28549]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Singapore
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 1984 the Government have made representations to the Government of Singapore about the activities of a company called Charter Industries of Singapore. [29726]

  The Prime Minister
  Chartered Industries of Singapore are part of the Government-owned Singapore 340
  technologies group. The British high commission, in the course of its export promotion activities, has regular discussions with the Singapore Ministry of Defence, which may include reference to Chartered Industries of Singapore.

HEALTH

  Asthma
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths of children aged under 17 years were caused by asthma in each of the past five years. [29091]

  Mr. Sackville
  The following is the information deaths coded to Asthma (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, code 493) as underlying cause to children aged between 28 days1 and up to 16 years of age, England and Wales 1989–1993.

  Numbers

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1989

  21

  11

  32

  1990

  30

  12

  42

  1991

  26

  14

  40

  1992

  15

  9

  24

  1993

  11

  11

  22

  1 For deaths at ages less than 28 days it is not possible to derive an underlying cause of death. However between 1989–93 there were no deaths under 28 days of age with an infant mention of Asthma.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 429, if she will list those authorities that were unable to spend 85 per cent. of their special transitional grant for 1993–94 in the independent sector. [29551]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are not yet able to give a complete list of those authorities which have failed to satisfy the 85 per cent. condition on the special transitional grant for 1993–94. This depends on the resolution of reports raised on the audited returns of a number of local authorities by district auditors. Inquiries are being pursued with the district auditors and the local authorities as appropriate.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will(a) publish, or (b) place in the Library the submissions made in early 1992 by Dr. Bolsin expressing concerns about arterial switch operations on paediatric patients at the Bristol Royal infirmary. [29515]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department did not receive a submission from Dr. Bolsin in 1992.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions were drawn by officials from her Department who visited the Bristol Royal infirmary in July 1994 and considered the performance of arterial switch operations on paediatric patients at that hospital. [29517]

  Mr. Sackville
  An official visited Bristol Royal infirmary in July 1994 but this was on a matter unconnected with arterial switch operations.
  341
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will(a) publish or (b) place in the Library the report submitted earlier this year by Marc R. De Leval and Stuart Hunter regarding the performance of arterial switch operations on paediatric patients at the Bristol Royal infirmary. [29516]

  Mr. Sackville
  The report was commissioned by Dr. John Roylance, chief executive of United Bristol hospitals trust. Inquiries regarding the report should be directed to Dr. Roylance.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sources informed her Department's decision to instruct the discontinuation in January of the performance of arterial switch operations on paediatric patients at the Bristol Royal infirmary. [29518]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department did not instruct the trust to discontinue arterial switch operations.

  In-House Bids
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those parts of her Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if she will indicate the expertise which was absent in her Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid from taking place; which future parts of her Department or departmental agencies she intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29427]

  Mr. Sackville
  During the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995, the Department contracted out four activities without in-house bids: the welfare food scheme; the provision of office services at Quarry house, Leeds; security services at Richmond house; and building management for part of the London estate. In the case of the latter, the private sector was better equipped to deliver the service and to advise on the new technology that was required. The decision to contract out the other three activities was taken for management and operational reasons.

  Contracting out is under consideration in a number of other areas but we have no firm plans as yet.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were in residential and nursing homes in November 1994 whose care was being purchased by the local authority social services department following an assessment of their needs for care. [29345]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally relates to the position as at 31 March 1994 and was published in statistical bulletin 1994/13 "Personal Social Services: Residential Accommodation in England 1994", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people receiving care in(a) nursing homes and (b) residential homes; and how many are being financed by (i) the local health authority, (ii) benefits, (iii) community care payments by local authorities and (iv) their own resources. [29714]
  342
  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is summarized in the table. No information is routinely available on numbers of people financed by their own resources or by the local health authority.

  Residential and nursing care in England, 1993–94

  Numbers in thousands

  Type of home

  People receiving care

  Residents in receipts of income support2 4

  Residents supported by local authorities3 4

  Nursing care

  1441

  79

  25

  Residential care

  2913

  111

  121

  1 Number of occupied beds at the date of inspection in nursing homes registered under Section 23 of the registered Homes Act 1984.

  Source: Department of Health statistical return KO36.

  2 Residents may also receive other benefits apart from Income Support, eg., state pension.

  Source of data: Department of Social Security Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1994.

  3 As at 31 March 1994.

  Source: Department of Health statistical returns RAC5 and SR1.

  4 Sources of financial support are not mutually exclusive. Residents may receive financial support from a number of different sources, including both income support and local authority support, as well as using their own resources.

  Hospital Discharge
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of beds blocked as a result of hospitals being unable to discharge patients due to the lack of appropriate arrangements being made by social services departments for their care in the community. [29711]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested. The results of a survey of hospital discharge were published in "Community Care Monitoring Report 1994" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated by dentists(a) within the national health service and (b) privately each year since 1979. [29641]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service dental treatment may be provided by the general dental service, Information on the general dental service and the community dental service is shown in table 1. For the general dental service, information is available centrally only about the number of coursed of treatment administered to patients, rather than the number of patients treated. Since October 1990, the majority of treatments for children have been carried out under a capitation scheme. Therefore since 1989–90 the number of courses of treatment recorded for children represents only a partial picture of the number of children receiving treatment.
  343
  For the hospital dental service, the information available is for episodes completed and first referrals, rather than the number of patients treated. The information is shown in table 2.

  Information on private treatments is not available centrally.

  Table 1

  The General and Community Dental Services General Dental Services (GDS):

  Number of courses of treatment for adults and children; Community Dental Services (CDS):

  Number of patients treated—1979 to 1994–95 England

  Year

  GDS Adults

  CDS Children

  All patients

  1979

  17,351,250

  9,813,360

  1,359,000

  1980

  18,599,830

  10,013,790

  1,381,000

  1981

  18,975,130

  10,060,060

  1,357,000

  1982

  19,724,540

  10,201,760

  1,345,000

  1983

  20,316,210

  10,189,260

  1,224,477

  1984

  20,864,560

  10,106,270

  1,226,328

  1985

  21,338,100

  10,048,010

  1,212,738

  1986–87

  21,961,680

  10,141,430

  1,193,528

  1987–88

  22,394,600

  10,024,360

  1,155,856

  1988–89

  24,026,520

  10,231,320

  1,072,247

  1989–90

  22,809,160

  19,936,960

  993,533

  1990–91

  22,558,739

  17,987,146

  924,455

  1991–92

  24,273,099

  13,098,815

  941,831

  1992–93

  25,141,300

  12,805,865

  943,389

  1993–94

  24,847,648

  12,863,912

  908,820

  1994–95

  24,913,096

  13,053,036

  n/a

  1 Excludes GDS courses of treatment for children paid for under the capitation scheme. GDS courses of treatment are recorded in the year in which they were completed.

  Note:Figures for the CDS for years 1979 to 1982 are quoted to the nearest thousand.

  Table 2

  The Hospital Dental Service Episodes in dental specialties in NHS hospitals England, 1979 to 1993–94

  Year

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  New referrals to out-patients

  1979

  69,497

  22,980

  534,642

  1980

  78,502

  25,070

  551,663

  1981

  82,046

  26,164

  562,352

  1982

  75,694

  24,078

  580,454

  1983

  88,301

  27,628

  591,421

  1984

  90,915

  30,849

  616,644

  1985

  91,509

  33,812

  614,962

  1986

  93,225

  37,563

  594,575

  1987–88

  101,995

  n/a

  536,340

  1988–89

  99,702

  41,481

  518,709

  1989–90

  99,509

  48,740

  548,663

  1990–91

  96,668

  56,596

  527,708

  1991–92

  96,341

  81,954

  552,194

  1992–93

  92,449

  92,333

  585,240

  1993–94

  85,577

  102,590

  579,888

  Notes:

  1 Dental specialties included: Oral surgery, Restorative dentistry, Paediatric dentistry from 1984, Orthodontics, GP Dentistry to 1981, Dental medicine specialties from 1990–91. Specialties before 1982 may not be directly comparable with specialties from 1982.

  2. Ordinary admissions are counted on completion of the episodes. Completion represents Discharges and Deaths to 1987–88, Finished Consultant Episodes from 1988–89.

  Source:

  Department of Health returns SH3, KP70, KH09.

  Milk Consumption
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out by her Department on the effect on the health of the population of the level of milk consumption. [29616]

  Mr. Sackville
  No studies have been carried out by the Department of Health on the effect of the level of milk consumption on the health of the population in general.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the value of the independent living transfer element of the community care transfer funding for 1996–97 and future years(a) in total and (b) for each local authority; how it will be identified; and what plans he has to make new arrangements relating to it. [29769]

  Mr. Bowis
  Final decisions on these matters have yet to be taken. I shall be consulting the local authority associations later this year.

  Diet
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she gives to the public on the importance of milk and cheese to a balanced diet. [29591]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health's nutrition task force, in conjunction with the Health Education Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, published the "National Food Guide, The Balance of Good Health", in July 1994. This shows that milk and dairy foods can make an important contribution to a balanced diet. It advises people to choose lower fat versions whenever they can. Copies of the "National Food Guide" will be placed in the Library.

  Foetuses
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 310, what plans she has for new research following that completed for the Department in 1988 by Dr. Maria Fitzgerald into whether foetuses feel pain while being aborted. [30021]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department recently asked Dr. Maria Fitzgerald to update her original report. A copy of her second report entitled "Foetal Pain: an update of current scientific knowledge" will be placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of consultants in whole-time equivalents in each of the last five years. [30425]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical consultants: Whole-time equivalents England at 30 September each year

  Year

  Consultants

  1989

  13,670

  1990

  14,190

  1991

  14,500

  1992

  14,850

  1993

  15,210

  Note: All figures rounded to the nearest 10.
  345
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of hours worked by consultants in any available year in each of the last 10 years. [30427]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not routinely collected by the Department. However, data are available from surveys carried out by the Office of Manpower Economics in 1989—the results were published in the 20th (1990) report of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body—and by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, published in 1994.

  The OME gave average weekly hours spent on all national health service activities including emergency recall in 1989 as:

  Contract type

  Hours

  Whole time

  49.4

  Maximum part-time (MPT)

  47.7

  Other part-time

  36.3

  Honorary

  54.4

  Whole time and MPT

  48.6

  The MMC estimated that mean weekly hours spent by consultants on NHS and private practice work in 1992 were as follows:

  Contract type

  NHS hours

  Private practice hours

  Whole time

  53

  6

  Maximum part-time

  51

  11

  Less than maximum part-time

  45

  16

  Consultants on whole-time and maximum part-time contracts are required to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to NHS work. Maximum part-time consultants forgo one eleventh of their salary in return for no limit on private practice earnings.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the proportion of time spent by consultants on administration in the last 10 years. [30252]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if candidates for management posts at national health service trusts are obliged to declare personal connections to trust chairmen; and if chairmen are required to make declarations in such circumstances. [28326]

  Mr. Malone
  All board members are required to subscribe to the code of conduct for national health service boards, which makes it clear that chairman and board members should act impartially and should not be influenced by social or business relationships when acting on behalf of the trust. When recruiting for management posts, trusts should take appropriate steps to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with in line with the code.

  Appetite Suppressants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of side effects and addiction caused by appetite suppressant drugs. [29307]
  346
  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently five drug substances licensed for use as appetite suppressants— dexfenfluramine, diethylproprion, fenfluramine, mazindol, and phenteramine. All these medicines have a stimulatory effect on the nervous system and it is recognised that long-term use may lead to dependence. Appetite suppressants are only indicated for short-term use, limited to a maximum of three to six months. The numbers of adverse drug reactions reported through the yellow card scheme for these medicines are shown in the table. A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. The larger number of reactions with dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine reflects their wider usage and the five drugs cannot be compared directly using these figures.

  Other than dependence, recognised adverse reactions to appetite suppressants include systematic and pulmonary hypertension, insomnia, agitation, depression, psychosis, diarrhoea, headache and rash. These effects are included in the product information on these medicines provided to doctors.

  Adverse reactions reported to the Medicines Control Agency for appetite suppressants

  Drug

  Total number of reactions

  Number of reactions indication dependence

  Dexfenfluramine

  1,518

  12

  Diethylpropion

  350

  35

  Fenfluramine

  1,071

  30

  Mazindol

  410

  0

  Phenteramine

  202

  3

  Backlog Maintenance
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the estimates of capital expenditure required for backlog maintenance for each region for each year since 1991; and what was the value of the actual backlog maintenance programme for each year since 1991 in each region. [29533]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Both capital and revenue expenditure may be used to meet backlog maintenance costs. Expenditure figures for this purpose are not separately identified.

  The figures in the table indicate the estimated cost at the end of each financial year for clearing repairs and bringing the estate up to a satisfactory condition. From 1991–92 they include an additional element for meeting statutory and safety standards arising from the removal of Crown immunity to the national health service.

  Backlog maintenance estimates by region 1990–91

  £ thousands

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  97,109

  138,672

  142,129

  Yorkshire

  98,988

  1—

  125,987

  Trent

  102,170

  120,375

  119,383

  East Anglia

  66,156

  1—

  83,462

  Oxford

  81,961

  1—

  89,925

  North West Thames

  70,934

  1—

  84,049

  North East Thames

  300,500

  329,303

  331,467

  347

  Backlog maintenance estimates by region 1990–91

  £ thousands

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  South East Thames

  108,939

  240,789

  264,256

  South West Thames

  150,222

  178,099

  176,176

  Wessex

  107,539

  86,088

  111,461

  South Western

  112,878

  153,415

  123,605

  West Midlands

  280,554

  320,737

  307,229

  Mersey

  50,148

  46,553

  64,310

  North Western

  104,911

  126,373

  144,011

  1 —Incomplete information available.

  Backlog maintenance estimates by region 1993–94

  £ thousands

  Region

  1993–94

  Northern and Yorkshire

  321,103

  Trent

  132,983

  Anglia and Oxford

  243,135

  North Thames

  503,381

  South Thames

  378,527

  South and West

  230,419

  West Midlands

  382,500

  North West

  198,950

  Capital Revenue Expenditure
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the outturn figures for each regional health authority of the capital and revenue expenditure for 1994–95; and what were the revenue and capital allocations for each region for 1994–95. [29534]

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1994–95 total revenue and capital cash limits for regions are shown in the table. The split between revenue and capital will not be known until figures for permitted virement between capital and revenue have been reported by regions. On the basis of total cash drawings, outturn for all regions is expected to equal cash limits. Final figures on attribution between revenue and capital cash limits and outturn will be available at the end of July.

  £ thousands

  RHA

  1994–95 cash limit capital and revenue

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,267,340

  Trent

  2,273,848

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,270,829

  North Thames

  3,779,078

  South Thames

  3,472,138

  South and West

  3,043,381

  West Midlands

  2,469,805

  North West

  3,296,326

  Total

  23,872,745

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional.

  2. Analysis between revenue and capital will not be available until all authorities have completed their annual accounts for 1994–95.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were admitted under the Mental Health Act 1983 as a percentage of total admissions for the last five years for which figures are available, broken down into health authorities. [29905]
  348
  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of patients is not available centrally as some patients may be admitted more than once. Information on the number of formal admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation as a percentage of total admissions in the psychiatric specialities by region of treatment is shown in the table. Comparable data are not available for the special health authorities.

  Formal admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation as a percentage of total admissions in the psychiatric specialties

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  England

  7.3

  7.3

  7.9

  8.7

  8.1

  Northern

  4.8

  5.2

  5.4

  6.2

  6.0

  Yorkshire

  6.2

  6.4

  9.1

  11.9

  6.8

  Trent

  7.0

  7.7

  6.0

  5.8

  5.1

  East Anglian

  7.9

  8.3

  8.0

  8.7

  7.9

  North West Thames

  11.1

  10.7

  15.1

  18.0

  17.1

  North East Thames

  8.2

  8.2

  9.6

  16.4

  13.7

  South East Thames

  5.6

  7.0

  7.9

  9.9

  10.2

  South West Thames

  16.2

  12.5

  13.0

  18.0

  9.2

  Wessex

  5.7

  5.4

  4.8

  4.0

  5.2

  Oxford

  5.4

  6.8

  8.2

  7.7

  9.3

  South Western

  5.5

  6.6

  7.2

  6.5

  6.7

  West Midlands

  6.2

  6.0

  5.0

  5.2

  6.2

  Mersey

  7.0

  6.1

  8.0

  6.8

  7.0

  North Western

  7.9

  7.5

  7.3

  7.0

  6.2

  Staff Grades and Associate Specialists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total numbers of staff grade and associate specialist grade doctors in each of the last five years; and what percentage in each of those years were women. [30251]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical associate specialists and staff grades in England as at 30 September each year

  Numbers

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Associate specialists

  790

  880

  880

  900

  970

  Percentage who were women

  41

  38

  38

  36

  35

  Staff grades

  30

  270

  490

  740

  1,110

  Percentage who were women

  24

  31

  31

  27

  38

  Notes:

  1. Data are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Data relates to hospital medical staff.

  Source:

  Statistical Bulletin Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical and Dental Staff in England 1983 to 1993.

  Bull Bars
  Mrs Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the number of child and adult deaths caused each year by bull bars on vehicles. [30253]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Assaults
  Mrs Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on trends in assaults in casualty departments in the last five years. [30295]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on assaults in casualty departments is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults have taken place on NHS premises in each of the last five years; and how many have taken place in casualty departments. [30296]

  Mr. Sakville
  This is a matter for local management and information is not available centrally.

  Casualty Departments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of casualty departments have a designated area for the assessment of patients with psychiatric problems and specialist personnel to do this assessment. [30294]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Medical Students and Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) medical students and (b) consultants were women in each of the last five years. [30250]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the percentage of women medical students and consultants in the years 1989 to 1993 in England. We do not yet have figures for women medical students and consultants for 1994.

  Numbers

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Student

  1,467

  1,544

  1,576

  1,721

  1,720

  Per cent.

  47

  49

  49

  53

  51

  Consultant

  2,256

  2,418

  2,540

  2,688

  2,837

  Per cent.

  15

  16

  16

  17

  17

  Note:

  The figures for medical students are taken for academic years starting in the year shown. Consultant figures are as at 30 September.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue guidance on the minimum amount of sleep a junior doctor should have in a 24-hour period and in one week. [30254]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  We continue to make significant progress through the new deal on junior doctors' hours, copies of which are available in the Library, to reduce both contracted and actual hours of work.

  The priority new deal target this year is to see that no junior doctor works more than 56 hours a week on average during their contracted duty period. Ensuring that juniors benefit from adequate rest periods means that this target can more easily be met.

  Childhood Psychosis (Schools)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that local education authorities provide sufficient appropriate special school places for children who suffer from autism and other forms of early childhood psychosis. [29085]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The assessment of children with autism and early childhood psychosis and the identification of a suitable school for them is the responsibility of the local education authority in whose area they live. The appropriate school for such children will not always be a special school. It may be a mainstream school or in a specialist unit attached to a mainstream school.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to protect workers and customers in the tourism and leisure industry from the effects of passive smoking. [29647]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's view is that passive smoking can best be addressed by voluntary means. To this end, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance to employers calling on them to adopt smoking policies to protect workers from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The Department of the Environment has issued a code of practice for owners and managers of public places.

ENVIRONMENT

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on the abandonment of offshore oil and gas installations; how many representations he has received on the subject; and if he will make a statement. [28989]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's policy on the abandonment of offshore oil and gas installations is that the operators responsible should establish the best practicable environmental option in the light of a detailed case-by-case examination, thus complying with the United Kingdom's international commitments. My Department has received a few dozen representations, mainly about an individual case.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that all nuclear waste imported into the United Kingdom for recycling is safely transported and stored. [29640]

  Mr. Atkins
  The transport of radioactive materials is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport; the storage of radioactive materials on nuclear licensed sites is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Sonic Repellents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures exist to ensure that companies test sonic repellents to determine the physiological and wider effects of their devices on marine wildlife before they are put into commercial operation.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that such devices in use represent a threat to marine wildlife. The Department, jointly, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is sponsoring Loughborough university to carry out research into acoustic position fixing devices, and the use of passive deterrents, on fishing nets, aimed at reducing cetacean fatalities through bycatches.

  Rents
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has commissioned or evaluated in respect of possible regulation of private rents. [29604]

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has of the average current market rent for(a) a bedsit, (b) a studio flat, (c) a two bedroom flat and (d) a four bedroom home in (i) the country as a whole and (ii) each region. [29605]

  Mr. Curry
  The most recent available information on estimated average market rents in England for 1993–94, is as follows:

  £ a week

  Bedsit

  40

  Studio flat

  67

  Two bedroom flat

  88

  The estimates are from the survey of English housing 1993–94. Like all estimates from household surveys they are subject to sampling error. The sample is not large enough to provide a regional breakdown and the sample of four bedroom properties with market rents is too small to provide a reliable estimate for England.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bodies that have sent representations to him asking for private rent levels to be regulated. [29603]

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Architects (Registration) Acts
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will introduce legislation to amend the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931 to 1969; and if he will make a statement. [29970]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The need for reform of this legislation is accepted. We are seeking an early legislative opportunity bearing in mind other pressures on the programme.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by shire county the amounts 352
  of county fund revenue reserves each is budgeting to hold at the end of 1995–96 excluding estimated balances held by schools under local management of schools; and what percentage this represents of the budget requirements for 1995–96. [26855]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The following estimates of the level of reserves at 31 March 1996, excluding schools balances, are calculated from authorities' planned use of reserves in their budgets for 1995–96 as reported on their revenue account return. These reserves include amounts, which may be significant in some cases, which may be earmarked for specific purposes and thus not be available to the council for general use. Further information, including estimates of the split between earmarked and unallocated reserves at the beginning of 1995–96, is currently being collected by my Department via an ad-hoc survey of revenue reserves, but the following figures do not incorporate any amendments which may be made as a result of that survey.

  Non-LMS budgeted level of reserves at 31 March 1996

  Reserves1£000s

  Percentage of budget requirement2

  Avon

  6,367

  1.1

  Bedfordshire

  6,303

  1.8

  Berkshire

  8,999

  2.0

  Buckinghamshire

  26,013

  6.6

  Cambridgeshire

  29,000

  7.6

  Cheshire

  21,574

  3.7

  Cleveland

  3,940

  1.0

  Cornwall

  13,573

  4.8

  Cumbria

  9,683

  3.2

  Derbyshire

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  9,150

  1.5

  Dorset

  8,112

  2.3

  Durham

  7,141

  2.0

  East Sussex

  15,521

  3.7

  Essex

  33,750

  3.7

  Gloucestershire

  979

  0.3

  Hampshire

  15,930

  1.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,571

  1.5

  Hertfordshire

  27,187

  4.5

  Humberside

  4,260

  0.8

  Isle of Wight U. A.

  4,724

  5.1

  Kent

  15,200

  1.6

  Lancashire

  9,223

  1.0

  Leicestershire

  7,660

  1.4

  Lincolnshire

  15,947

  4.6

  Norfolk

  6,945

  1.6

  Northamptonshire

  11,226

  3.2

  Northumberland

  4,325

  2.2

  North Yorkshire

  9,777

  2.5

  Nottinghamshire

  3,803

  0.6

  Oxfordshire

  6,521

  2.1

  Shropshire

  3,479

  1.4

  Somerset

  20,620

  7.8

  Staffordshire

  36,310

  6.2

  Suffolk

  2,631

  0.7

  Surrey

  46,217

  8.5

  Warwickshire

  12,479

  4.6

  West Sussex

  3,322

  0.8

  Wiltshire

  4,117

  1.3

  1 Revenue Account (RA96) return. Level of reserves at 31 March 1996 = Estimated general fund reserves at beginning of financial year 1995–96 (excluding schools) + Appropriations to/from financial reserves in respect of the repayment of internal charges for the use of assets + Other appropriations to/from financial reserves.

  2 Column 1 as a percentage of budget requirement, taken from the Revenue Account (RA96) return.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes following the High Court decision by Mr. Justice Ognall on the appeal by the Inland Revenue on the separate valuation for council tax purposes of annexes set aside in houses for elderly relatives; and if he will make a statement. [30022]

  Mr. Curry
  We will study the full text of the judgment as soon as it is available, in order to decide what action may be necessary. Our current understanding is that it affects only a small number of cases where there is an unresolved dispute as to whether a property contains one dwelling or more than one dwelling for council tax purposes.

  The ruling, as we understand it pending full examination of the transcript, does not mean that thousands of families caring for elderly relatives are likely to face additional back dated council tax bills. The High Court has not said that either granny annexs generally or the particular granny annexs which were the subject of these cases are liable to separate council tax. They have merely said that the valuation tribunals concerned took irrelevant factors into account in taking their decisions. They have remitted the cases to the tribunals for reconsideration.

  The Government do not believe, and the judgment does not appear to suggest, that families should be financially penalised for sharing their home with an elderly relative or relatives.

  Local Government Commission
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which districts he will direct the Local Government Commission to carry out new reviews, and if he will make a statement. [30933]

  Mr. Gummer
  In my statements of 2 and 21 March I said that I would be directing a newly constituted commission to carry out new structure reviews of a small number of individual districts.

  I named 20 districts which I had in mind to refer to the commission. I said that nine of these would definitely be referred; for the remaining 11 we would hold meetings with the district councils and their county councils before coming to a view. That programme of meetings is now complete. I have considered all the arguments and decided that all 20 districts should be referred to the Commission for new reviews. They are: Basildon, Blackburn, Blackpool, Broxtowe, Dartford, Exeter, Gedling, Gillingham, Gloucester, Gravesham, Halton, Huntingdonshire, Northampton, Norwich, Peterborough, Rochester upon Medway, Rushcliffe, Thurrock, Warrington, and the Wrekin.

  I also said that, while I would consider requests from other districts to be reviewed, it was very unlikely that I should want to add significantly to the number of referrals to the commission. I have carefully considered all the requests which I have received, and in the light of those representations I have concluded that the district of Spelthorne in Surrey should be added to the list of reviews. Spelthorne is in many ways similar to the Berkshire districts which are to be given unitary status, and the proximity of Heathrow airport creates unusual and
  354
  specific problems for the authority. Against that background I judge that the district's case for unitary status deserves to be considered.

  We have concluded that in these cases the arguments are substantial enough to warrant further consideration. It will be for the commission to recommend whether or not it should have unitary status. It will then be for me to accept, modify or reject the proposals and Parliament ultimately to decide. I have not been convinced by the representations from other districts and have therefore concluded that no others should be referred to the commission for review.

  The commission will be directed to carry out these reviews with effect from the beginning of July. All of them will be carried out under new guidance to the commission. We have consulted on a draft and I shall publish the final version in the next few days, in time for the commission to start work promptly.

  I have also considered further the case of Rutland, in particular the implications for costs and service delivery, following my statement of 21 March. Rutland has a very clear sense of local identity and I am now satisfied that a unitary authority in Rutland would best reflect the identities and interests of the local community and secure effective and convenient local government. I have therefore decided to accept the commission's recommendation for Rutland to be given unitary status. We shall be consulting in due course on a draft order to give effect to that decision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the effect on fishing opportunities of the abandonment of offshore oil and gas installations. [28985]

  Mr. Jack
  My Department is contributing to an interdepartmental review of offshore abandonment policy. The committee charged with this work has prepared a consultative document, "Guidance Notes for Industry", setting out the Government's policy and procedures on offshore abandonment and this has been sent to fishermen's organisations and other interested bodies to seek their views. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Brent Spar
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to a memorandum by W. McMinn of his Department's fisheries laboratory for Dr. John Campbell, dated 6 December 1993, dealing with the contents of the Brent Spar storage unit. [30245]

  Mr. Jack
  The memorandum prepared by fisheries scientists does not require further consideration in the context of deep sea disposal as the remarks made related to the removal of sludge and ballast water for disposal in coastal waters.

  Veterinary Products
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what veterinary products containing organophosphorous compounds have been licensed for use in sheep dipping since 1972; and if he will give their

  Date licence issued

  Date licence expired

  Product name

  Alternative presentation

  Manufacturing company (licence holder)

  Active ingredient

  1 September 1972

  —

  Neocidol Winter Dip

  Paracide Fly and Scab Dip (when sold by Battle Hayward and Bower)

  CIBA Agriculture

  Diazinon

  1 September 1972

  21 November 1989

  Fisons Sheep Dip

  None

  Fisons Plc

  Diazinon

  1 September 1972

  31 August 1989

  Youngs Carbonphenothion Powder Fly Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Carbophenothion

  1 September 1972

  31 August 1989

  Youngs Sovereign Fluid Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Carbophenothion

  1 September 1972

  31 August 1989

  Youngs Jason Green Label Liquid Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Carbophenothion

  1 September 1972

  8 October 1990

  Youngs Mycotic Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Iodofenphos

  1 September 1972

  30 June 1987

  Battles Improved Fluid Dip

  None

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  1 September 1972

  31 August 1989

  Youngs Defly Liquid Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Carbophenothion

  20 November 1972

  20 November 1987

  Youngs 200 Liquid Tick Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Chlorpyrifos

  20 February 1973

  16 November 1987

  Supona Sheep Dip

  None

  Shell Chemical UK Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  16 May 1973

  21 November 1989

  Youngs Killtick Liquid Tick Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Chlorpyrifos

  16 May 1973

  16 May 1988

  Youngs Powder Fly Dip

  Youngs Summer Mycotic Dip

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Bromophos

  13 February 1975

  15 March 1991

  Asuntol Sheep Dip

  None

  Bayer UK Ltd.

  Coumaphos

  24 October 1975

  21 November 1989

  Battles Op Fluid Dip

  None

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  9 July 1976

  9 July 1986

  Youngs Dursban Winter Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Chlorpyrifos

  18 February 1977

  21 November 1989

  Youngs Iodophefos Scab Approved Winter Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Iodofenphhos

  24 January 1979

  21 January 1989

  Battle Improved Organophosphorus Fluid Dip

  None

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  28 February 1979

  31 March 1993

  Osmonds Viper Dip

  None

  Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  19 October 1979

  21 November 1989

  Viper Winter Dip

  None

  Ace Chemicals Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  1 September 1980

  8 July 1989

  Youngs Scab Approved Diazinon Winter Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Diazinon

  6 November 1980

  6 November 1990

  Youngs Summer Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Propetamphos

  6 November 1980

  —

  Youngs Biotic Sheep Dip

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Propetamphos

  24 June 1981

  21 November 1989

  Farmers Fly and Tick Dip Prodip

  Viper Supona Fly and Tick Dip

  Ace Chemical Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  11 January 1984

  17 September 1991

  Prodip Ectomort Centenary

  None

  Hoechst UK Ltd.

  Propetamphos

  11 January 1984

  —

  Ectomort Centenary

  None

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Propetamphos

  26 January 1984

  30 November 1990

  Ovidip R Scab Approved Sheep Dip

  None

  Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd.

  Propetamphos

  6 April 1984

  6 April 1989

  Rodgers No.10 Neu Fly and Tick Dip

  None

  Dexstar Chemicals Ltd.

  Chlorpyrifos

  24 January 1985

  15 April 1994

  Coopers Powerpack Summer Dip

  None

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos and Diazinon

  31 January 1985

  23 August 1990

  Coopers Summer Dip 400

  None

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  6 February 1985

  14 April 1993

  Coopers Winter Dip 200

  None

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  Diazinon

  12 April 1985

  —

  Coopers Powerpack Winter Dip

  None

  Mallinckrodt Veterinary Ltd.

  Diazinon

  13 August 1985

  —

  Paracide Plus

  Summer Fly Dip

  Battle Hayward and Bower Ltd.

  Diazinon

  30 September 1985

  31 March 1993

  Youngs Scab Approved Jason Winter Dip

  Coopers Winter Dip (with Phenols) (when sold by Coopers Animal Health)Robert Young and Co. Ltd.Propetamphos

  12 March 1986

  12 March 1991

  Coopers Dismaster Dip Scab Approved

  None

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos Diazinon

  2 July 1986

  31 March 1993

  Coopers Border Winter Dip Scab Approved

  None

  Coopers Animal Health Ltd.

  Propteamphos

  356
  proprietary name, the manufacturing company, the exact ingredients and the date of licence in each case. [29733]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: According to our records, the information requested is as set out in the table:
  357

  Date licence issued

  Date licence expired

  Product name

  Alternative presentation

  Manufacturing company (licence holder)

  Active ingredient

  1 October 1986

  —

  Osmonds Gold Fleece Sheep Dip

  Golden Fleece Sheep Dip (when sold by Bimeda UK Ltd.) Deosan Diazinon Sheep Dip (when sold by Divesey Ltd.) Downland Scab Approved Fly Dip (when sold by Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.)

  Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.

  Diazinon

  31 October 1988

  1 April 1993

  Osmonds Northern Fly Dip

  None

  Osmond and Son (Dublin) Ltd.

  Chlorfenvinphos

  24 February 1988

  —

  Diazadip All Seasons Sheep Dip

  None

  Bayer Plc

  Diazinon

  26 October 1988

  —

  Flyte 1250

  Seraphos Scab Approved Sold by Crown Veterinary Pharmaceuticals Downland Seraphos Scab Approved (when sold by Downland Marketing Ltd.)Robert Young and Co. Ltd.Propetamphos

  29 April 1994

  —

  Coopers All Seasons Fly and Scab Dip

  None

  Mallinckrodt Veterinary Ltd.

  Diazinon

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the average prize received by winners in(a) the national lottery and (b) the national lottery scratch card competition; [30028]

  (2) on what date Camelot received income from the national lottery which completed recoupment of its initial investment; and on what date this had been expected when the contract was signed. [30027]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the director-general of the national lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the Lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Advisory Council on Libraries
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what plans he has to revise the membership of the Advisory Council on Libraries following the local election results on 4 May. [30170]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the costs of the compilation, publication and distribution of his Department's publication on the British film industry. [29755]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The document was published as a Command Paper by HMSO, which has borne the printing and publishing costs with the aim of recovering these from sales revenue. My Department incurred additional production and distribution costs of approximately £14,150, including VAT.

  Rugby
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the third report of the National Heritage Select Committee's report on Rugby League and Rugby Union, HC (1994–95) 276. [29902]
  358
  Mr. Sproat
  My Department responded to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on 31 May and I have today placed a copy of the response in the Library.

  Library and Information Commission
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 31 January to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring),Official Report, columns 617–18, what appointments he has made to the new Library and Information Commission. [30934]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to be able to announce the following appointments to the Library and Information Commission:

  Douglas Adams—author

  Mark Wood—Reuters

  Dr. Sandra Ward—Glaxo

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-Healey —chairman of Chadwyck-Healey Publishing

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger—Camden and Islington community health service NHS trust

  Professor Judith Elkin—head of University of Central England school of information studies

  Councillor Eddy Arram—Croydon borough council

  Dr. Brian Lang—chief executive, British Library

  Derek Law—director of information services and systems, King's college London

  Dr. George Chambers—formerly chairman of the Northern Ireland CBI

  Dr. Robert McKee—director of libraries and arts, Solihull metropolitan borough council

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer—chairman of the former LISC(E) and of the British Library's Advisory Committee on the research and development department.

  I am confident that with the breadth and depth of experience this membership represents, the new commission is well equipped to deal with all the issues on which I originally anticipated it working.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if any person associated with the Winston Churchill memorial trust sought to interest him
  359
  or his predecessor in the possible purchase for the nation of the Churchill papers prior to the acquisition of the papers by the national heritage memorial fund. [29854]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Neither I nor my predecessor were ever approached with any specific proposal by the Churchill Archive settlement trust to purchase the papers direct.

  Memorial Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for national heritage what responsibility he has for ensuring that the national heritage memorial fund operates in such a way as to secure economy and value for money in relation to its acquisitions policy. [29654]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The primary responsibility for securing economy and value for money in the operations of the national heritage memorial fund lies with the trustees and the accounting officer of the fund. These responsibilities are established by way of a financial memorandum agreed between my Department and the fund and the directions I have issued to them in accordance with section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 for securing the proper management and control of the money paid to them.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the membership and terms of appointment of the national heritage memorial fund. [29656]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are currently 14 trustees of the National Heritage memorial fund, each appointed for a term of three years from the dates indicated.

  Trustee

  Appointment date

  Lord Rothschild (Chairman)

  11 April 1995

  Lord Crathorne

  16 August 1992

  Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden

  118 September 1993

  Professor Palmer Newbould

  123 April 1994

  Sir Martin Jacomb

  129 July 1994

  John Keegan Esq.

  1 August 1994

  Sir Martin Holdgate CB

  25 April 1995

  W. Lindsay Evans Esq.

  123 April 1995

  Cmdr Michael Saunders Watson DL

  13 February 1993

  Mrs. Catherine Porteous

  16 February 1994

  Sir Richard Carew Pole Bt DL

  118 June 1994

  Mrs. Caryl Hubbard CBE

  1 August 1994

  Sir Nicholas Goodison

  116 August 1994

  Mrs. Diane Nutting

  120 November 1994

  1 Re-appointment.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to require the national heritage memorial fund to take a second opinion on the valuation of acquisitions and for that valuation to be made available for public inspection. [29655]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The policy on the number of, and publicity relating to, valuations secured by the national heritage memorial fund is a matter for the trustees of the fund.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Franchises
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the franchising director concerning the eligibility of 360
  Compagnie Generale Des Eaux to receive an invitation to tender for rail franchises, as defined by clause 26, subsection (3) of the Railways Act 1993; [30171]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the franchising director regarding his duties as defined by clause 26, subsection (3) of the Railways Act 1993. [30172]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport as of 17 June how many companies, organisations or individuals have been refused an invitation to tender for private rail franchises for reasons of(a) an inappropriate financial position, (b) inappropriate managerial competence and (c) not being an appropriate person as defined by clause 26, subsection (3) of the Railways Act 1993. [30173]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average change in rail fares between(a) 1965 and 1979 and (b) 1979 and 1995. [30248]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not available for the period between 1965 and 1979. Based on a basket of over 2,000 fares, the average annual change in British Rail fares between 1971–72 and 1978–79 was 2.7 per cent. in real terms. Between 1978–79 and 1994–95, the average annual change was 1.9 per cent. in real terms.

  "The Way Ahead"
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the costs of the compilation, publication and distribution of his Department's publication, "Transport: The Way Ahead". [29756]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The costs of design, printing, compilation and distribution of "The Way Ahead" were £29,000.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Meaeher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list annual outturn and planned expenditure on new construction of roads in England, as defined in figure 22 of his Department's "Transport Report 1995", for the period 1979–80 to 1997–98 in(a) cash terms, (b) constant prices and (c) constant prices allowing for the introduction of value added tax on motorway and trunk road improvement contracts let after 1 April 1989. [29532]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested regarding new construction outturn and expenditure in cash terms and constant prices is set out in the table.

  The effect of VAT is more difficult to determine because:
  complex transitional arrangements applied when VAT on construction contracts was introduced in 1989;
  VAT does not apply uniformly to all costs; and
  the Department's accounting records do not identify separately VAT that is not recoverable. To identify this would involve examining every contract and this could be done only at a disproportionate cost.
  361

  DoT expenditure on new construction of roads 1979–80 to 1988–89

  Outturn

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash

  338

  404

  446

  524

  511

  564

  568

  548

  607

  707

  Constant prices (1993–94)

  829

  838

  845

  925

  863

  907

  866

  810

  853930

  DoT expenditure on new construction of roads 1989–90 to 1997–98

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  Cash

  912

  1,269

  1,276

  1,309

  1,344

  1,314

  1,090

  1,027

  980

  Constant prices (1993–94)

  1,122

  1,445

  1,367

  1,349

  1,344

  1,288

  1,035

  951

  888

  The constant prices have been calculated on the latest available GDP deflator using 1993–94 as the baseline.

  Contractors
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those consultant, outside organisations and individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to those contractors. [30177]

  Mr. Norris
  I will write to the hon. Member with details and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Pollution Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Government's response to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution report on transport to be published. [29491]

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the Government's response will be taken in the light of the national debate on transport policy initiated by the Secretary of State and outlined in "Transport: The Way ahead", published on 12 June.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to resist any attempt by the European Commission to decide directly or indirectly how many aircraft may fly over west London on their way to Heathrow and at what times of day. [29446]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes.

  Emergency Landings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by airport the number of emergency landings that have taken place in Scotland in the past five years. [30015]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by the Department or by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Driving Tests (Impersonations)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving tests took place in 1994–95; and what was the estimated number of impersonations that occurred. [30461]
  362
  Mr. Norris
  The number of driving tests that took place in 1994–95 was 1,649,570. A total of 282 possible impersonations were queried. There were 33 convictions.

  Departmental Scientists
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many scientists there are in his Department, listed by grade. [30218]

  Mr. Norris
  According to the Department's personnel information system, my Department, including executive agencies, had 338 staff in either a science grade or science discipline. A breakdown by grade is shown in the following table:

  Grade title

  Staff

  Grade 4

  1

  Grade 5

  4

  Grade 6

  17

  Grade 7

  65

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer (London)

  1

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  Senior Scientific Officer

  73

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  80

  Higher scientific Officer (Development)

  1

  Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  Scientific Officer

  67

  Scientific Officer (London)

  1

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  22

  Sandwich Course Student

  1

  Technical Grade 1

  1

  Technical Grade 2

  1

  Total

  338

  Marchioness Disaster
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlay the decision that there should be no public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster in the immediate aftermath of the disaster; and who was responsible for this decision. [29319]

  Mr. Norris
  The power to order a formal investigation into a maritime casualty rests with the Secretary of State for Transport. Following the loss of the Marchioness, Transport Ministers of the day decided that the use of the new powers available under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 were the most appropriate way of establishing the cause of the tragedy and of identifying what lessons could be learnt to avoid a recurrence. The chief inspector of marine accidents ordered an investigation of the incident,
  363
  the results of which were published as a Marine Accident Investigation Branch report, on 15 August 1991. The report's findings were subsequently endorsed by an inquest jury.

EDUCATION

  Drug Education Programmes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what drug education programmes in(a) the United Kingdom or (b) elsewhere have resulted in a reduction in drug use. [29308]

  Mr. Forth
  There is some evidence from outside the United Kingdom that information can play a vital part in reducing demand for drugs. For example, research undertaken by the United States' National Institute on Drug Abuse published in 1991 showed that"information, presented in a realistic and credible fashion, plays a vital part in reducing the demand for a drug".

  The Government are clear that education has a key part to play in preventing drug misuse amongst the young. The Office for Standards in Education will undertake a specific study of provision for drug education in schools during the academic year 1995–96 to establish evidence on best practice.

  Directors of Education
  Mr. Barry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 240, how many directors of education there will be in Berkshire following the reorganisation of the county. [31074]

  Mr. Forth
  Director of education is a title that some authorities give to their chief advisers on educational issues: chief education officer is another. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to him on 17 May,Official Report, column 240.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State what resources will be available for access funds for students in further and higher education institutions in England in 1995–96, and when he proposes to issue new guidance on the use of the funds.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is making available £27.733 million for access funds for students in further and higher education in England for 1995–96. This sum is being allocated between the two funding councils for England as follows:

  £ million

  (i) Higher Education Funding Council for England to be allocated as follows:

  21.624

  Undergraduate fund

  15.88

  Postgraduate fund

  5.40

  Further Education fund

  0.34

  (ii) Further Education Funding Council for England

  6.109

  Total

  27.733

  The Department will be writing shortly to the two funding councils with guidance to be given to institutions about allocation and use of the funds for 1995–96.

  Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of young people attending university come from homes in which parents earn less than the average industrial wage. [29639]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Davie Inquiry
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total cost of the Davie inquiry of July 1994. [28933]

  The Attorney-General: The direct costs attributable to the Davie inquiry totalled £18,335.

  War Crimes Act
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to announce decisions about prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991. [29259]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his earlier question on 22 May 1995,Official Report, column 451.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the items of data to be held on the benefits card; and what is his estimate of the number of times per year the information on the card will be changed. [29762]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The design of the benefit payment card has not yet been decided.

  It is not envisaged that the card itself will need to be changed other than by replacement due to damage, loss or expiry.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 114 what financial targets he has set for each benefit office to achieve as a result of home visits. [29908]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No such targets are set.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funds are available for local authorities that consider the funding available under regulation 11 is insufficient to meet local needs. [29606]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No additional funds are available. We believe the current funding arrangements for direct and indirect subsidy for local authorities' expenditure on cases exempt from rent restriction to be fair and reasonable. The arrangements ensure local authorities
  365
  have an incentive to make prudent decisions when considering rent restrictions.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he plans to issue to claimants and local authorities with special reference to Coventry city council in respect of private landlords charging rents above the current costs of a market rent in relation to the new housing benefit changes. [29598]

  Mr. Evans
  This Department will be publicising the proposed changes to the housing benefit scheme by means of a publicity campaign. The campaign will include a new leaflet aimed at the general public which will be available from post offices and local authorities. Local authorities have already received details of the proposals and will receive further detailed written guidance before the changes come into effect.

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration underlies the authority of the Child Support Agency to charge individuals an annual fee for the review of their cases when no review has been supplied; and if he will make a statement. [28281]

  Mr. Burt
  We accept that the Child Support Agency has not been able to provide an adequate level of service. Fees have, therefore, been suspended for two years until April 1997.

  The assessment fee is not charged for specific actions on a child maintenance assessment; it covers the administration costs of servicing the assessment. For that reason we believe it right that those who use such a service should pay a fee rather than have the cost borne by taxpayers, as would have been the case if the courts and lawyers had been involved.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were claiming income support in Scotland, Wales and in each of the standard English regions; and how many partners and dependents they had in each of the last five years. [29328]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Income support recipients by country: May 1990

  Thousands

  Country

  Number of claimants

  Number of partners

  Number of dependents

  England

  3,451

  577

  1,793

  Wales

  248

  44

  133

  Scotland

  481

  70

  226

  Total

  4,180

  691

  2,151

  Notes:

  Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1994, Income Support Statistics Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1990-May 1993.

  2. Figures in the tables have ben rounded to the nearest thousand and as a result some of the figures may not tally.

  3. Figures for the standard English regions are not available prior to May 1991.

  4. Dependant include 16 to 18 year olds.
  366

  Income support recipients in England by standard statistical region: May 1991

  English region

  Number of claimants(000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  North

  296

  51

  173

  North West

  632

  99

  358

  Yorks and Humberside

  421

  74

  252

  East Midlands

  278

  52

  151

  West Midlands

  431

  81

  256

  East Anglia

  126

  23

  55

  South West

  310

  59

  155

  South East (ex London)

  612

  110

  330

  London (Inner and Outer)

  637

  99

  380

  Income Support recipients by country: May 1991

  Country

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  England

  3,743

  647

  2,110

  Wales

  257

  46

  138

  Scotland

  487

  69

  249

  Total

  4,487

  763

  2,497

  Income Support recipients in England by standard statistical region: May 1992

  English region

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  North

  318

  55

  183

  North West

  693

  114

  394

  Yorks and Humberside

  463

  80

  269

  East Midlands

  321

  59

  175

  West Midlands

  493

  96

  296

  East Anglia

  143

  29

  71

  South West

  353

  67

  185

  South East (ex London)

  706

  138

  402

  London (Inner and Outer)

  792

  128

  479

  Income support recipients by country: May 1992

  Country

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  England

  4,282

  766

  2,454

  Wales

  287

  52

  157

  Scotland

  519

  73

  263

  Total

  5,088

  891

  2,874

  Income support recipients in England by standard statistical region: May 1993

  English region

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  North

  349

  63

  192

  North West

  756

  121

  429

  Yorks and Humberside

  509

  95

  286

  East Midlands

  347

  67

  193

  West Midlands

  552

  112

  332

  East Anglia

  159

  32

  85

  South West

  404

  78

  207

  South East (ex London)

  810

  161

  470

  London (Inner and Outer)

  909

  152

  532

  367

  Income support recipients by country: May 1993

  Country

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  England

  4,795

  882

  2,725

  Wales

  305

  56

  173

  Scotland

  543

  78

  265

  Total

  5,643

  1,016

  3,163

  Income support recipients in England by standard statistical region: May 1994

  English region

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  North

  353

  63

  195

  North West

  758

  117

  428

  Yorks and Humberside

  510

  93

  287

  East Midlands

  355

  68

  201

  West Midlands

  550

  111

  333

  East Anglia

  161

  32

  85

  South West

  399

  73

  204

  South East (ex London)

  801

  152

  462

  London (Inner and Outer)

  926

  150

  533

  Income support recipients by country: May 1994

  Country

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number of partners (000s)

  Number of dependents (000s)

  England

  4,812

  858

  2,748

  Wales

  312

  56

  175

  Scotland

  550

  79

  262

  Total

  5,675

  992

  3,185

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the proposed housing benefit changes to take into consideration the shortage of housing stock and reduced bargaining power of claimants in certain areas. [29599]

  Mr. Evans
  No. Where the tenant is unable to find alternative accommodation or negotiate a lower rent, the local authority will be able to use its discretion to pay above the restricted rent, or encourage the claimant to look for properties in adjoining localities. Furthermore, pre-tenancy determinations will help tenants to get a better indication of the likely rent that housing benefit will meet before they commit themselves to a tenancy.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make a decision to amend the housing benefit changes in respect of its effect on sheltered and supported housing. [29600]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation on the proposed changes to housing benefit. We will consider carefully the position of sheltered and supported housing as part of our response to the report.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if local authorities will be given the funding under the new housing benefit procedures to enable local authorities to use their discretion to respond 368
  to local needs to the same extent as currently occur under the regulation 11 payments. [29601]

  Mr. Evans
  The Government consider the level of funding for the new arrangements to be realistic. It will allow local authorities scope to help individual cases of exceptional hardship they consider to be most urgent. For claims made under the new arrangements, it is not expected that local authorities should continue to protect all those cases which would currently satisfy the criteria in regulations to have their rent met in full.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of administration costs resulting from the proposed housing benefit changes being implemented. [29602]

  Mr. Evans
  An estimate of the total administration costs has still to be completed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Grants Advisory Group
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the Liverpool-based Business Grants Advisory Group; what steps he will take, through business links and local authorities, to ensure that companies, and small business in particular, are aware that the information sold by the Business Grants Advisory Group is available free of charge from Government agencies; whether his Department will initiate inquires into this practice; and if he will make a statement. [29899]

  Mr. Page
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received no representations about the Business Grants Advisory Group (Liverpool) Ltd.

  The wide range of free or low-cost services to business offered by business links and local authorities is widely publicised, and includes advice on finding grants and soft funding. Private sector consultancies also offer this advice. The Department will always investigate well-founded complaints, but cannot interfere with legitimate business activity. Businesses are free to choose which advisory services they will use.

  Government office for Merseyside has written to Liverpool city council and to all business links and chambers on Merseyside and in the north-west asking them to advise businesses of the availability of free advice on grants and funding through business links. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce has advised all chambers to remind their members that free advice in this field is readily available, and Merseyside chamber has done this.

  Contractors
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Government-owned, contractor-managed, establishments are covered by his Department. [30212]

  Mr. Heseltine
  None.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the contractors bidding for the scientific establishment which his Department has put out to tender. [30214]
  369
  Mr. Heseltine
  Members of the two consortia currently bidding for the contract to provide research services to DTI at the National Physical Laboratory are:

  (a) W. S. Atkins, SIRA and Scientific Generics

  (b) Serco, AEA Technology and Loughborough University of Technology

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long the management contracts are for Government-owned, contractor-managed establishments(a) in general and (b) for the National Physical Laboratory. [30213]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The duration of management contracts for Government-owned, contractor-operated establishments varies widely. The duration of the contract for provision of research services at the National Physical Laboratory is under discussion with the shortlisted bidders.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts have been tendered for and won by(a) W. S. Atkins and (b) Serco since 1990. [30221]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department does not keep a central record of all contracts tendered for and awarded to individual companies. An exercise to establish how many contracts have been tendered for and won by W. S. Atkins and Serco since 1990 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Military List
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences were(a) applied for and (b) granted under the military list between 1986 and 1989. [29162]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The required information' is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Applications received

  16,847

  17,590

  15,697

  14,601

  Licences granted

  2—

  16,745

  316,005

  13,584

  Notes:

  1 The figures include all applications for licences for equipment classified under Group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order. This includes all goods classified "ML", for 1989, it also includes goods classified "PL" in Group 1 of the Order.

  2 For 1986, separate figures were not kept for applications granted and refused. The provision of this information would incur disproportionate costs.

  3 The figures make it appear that more licences were issued in 1988 than the number of applications received. This is because the licensing process always carries over from year to the next. Hence some of the licences issued in one year will have been received in the previous year.

  1. The corresponding figures for all export licences received (including those for the military goods listed above) for the period in question are:

  1986: 89,705

  1987: 97,842

  1988: 92,280

  1989: 75,952

  Company Directors (Misconduct)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many unfit conduct reports pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 were 370
  submitted by official receivers and were rejected for not being evidentially strong enough in each of the last three years. [29187]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of unfit conduct reports submitted by official receivers and not proceeded with were:

  Financial year

  Total Submitted without full report

  Total Submitted with full report

  Total not proceeded with

  1992–93

  2,536

  121

  32

  1993–94

  3,425

  107

  13

  1994–95

  2,281

  244

  26

  The number of reports not proceeded with relates only to those submitted as a full report, some of which would have been submitted in the previous financial year. It also includes those where there were parallel criminal proceedings, the bankruptcy of the potential respondent or the discovery of evidence which would refute or mitigate the allegation of misconduct.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many unfit conduct reports pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 were submitted by insolvency practitioners and were rejected for not being evidentially strong enough in each of the last three years. [29188]

  Mr. Evans
  The number of unfit conduct reports submitted by insolvency practitioners and not proceeded with were:

  Financial year

  Total submitted

  Total not proceeded with

  1992–93

  3,901

  3,320

  1993–94

  3,727

  3,604

  1994–95

  3,147

  3,032

  The number not proceeded with cannot be related to:

  (i) those reports submitted in that year because in some 25 to 30 per cent. of cases decisions following investigation will be taken in the next accounting period, and

  (ii) the number of reports accepted for further investigation, because some are not proceeded with subsequently because of parallel criminal proceedings, the bankruptcy of the potential respondent or the discovery of evidence which would refute or mitigate the allegation of misconduct.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29418]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following areas of work have been contracted out without an in-house bid under the "Competing for Quality" programme:

  (i) 1992–93

  Press Notice Distribution

  Offshore Focus Magazine

  Gas and Oil Measurement Branch Security

  Database Maintenance

  Photographic Service (National Physical Laboratory)

  371

  (ii) 1993–94

  Stationary Supply

  Translation

  Various Support Services (Patent Office)

  (iii) 1994–95

  Accounts Services Agency

  Ships Radio Licensing (Radiocommunications Agency)

  Decisions to contract out without an in-house bid have been taken where the private sector was clearly better-equipped to deliver a specific service, has had a better understanding of market needs, or has had the capacity to invest in new technology. Such decisions have also been taken when the activity has been relatively small and peripheral to my Department's core functions. In each case overall value for money has been assessed through comparing the quality and cost of bids against a benchmark of continuing in-house provision which includes planned efficiency and quality of service improvements. Information on an individual test basis can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Work is under way to contract out the following in 1995–96 without an in-house bid:

  Building Management Services

  The National Physical Laboratory

  Companies House:

  London Office and Satellites

  Edinburgh Office

  Cardiff Office—range of activities

  The Insolvency Service:

  Official Receivers' Administrative Functions

  Patent Office:

  Various support services

  Radiocommunications Agency:

  Various support services

  Of course, staff are always free to make bids on a staff buy-out basis alongside other bidders, taking the work into the private sector. For example, there was a management bid on this basis for the Accounts Services Agency.

  Output and Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect of membership of the EC on output and employment in(a) the United Kingdom cotton textile industry, (b) the United Kingdom bus and coach industry and (c) the United Kingdom pottery industry; and what has been the change since 1970 in the volume of United Kingdom output, imports from and exports to the EC Six, in import penetration from the EC, and in the numbers employed in the industry. [29440]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has made no such estimate. Consistent information from 1970 is not readily available and can be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect EU membership has had on output and employment in(a) the United Kingdom wool industry, (b) the United
  372
  Kingdom carpet industry, (c) the United Kingdom motor car industry and (d) the United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry; and if he will show in respect of each the change from 1970 in (i) the volume of United Kingdom output and (ii) imports from and exports to (1) the EC Six and (2) other EC countries, (3) import penetration from the EC and elsewhere and (4) the numbers employed in the industry. [29944]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has made no such estimate. Consistent information from 1970 is not readily available and can be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the percentage change in import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures less food, drink and tobacco since 1971; and to what extent it is due to (i) the reduction in the tariff, (ii) the removal of tariff protection against EC countries and (iii) the monetary and exchange rate policies of successive United Kingdom Governments; [29979]

  (2) if he will publish for each year since 1970 his estimate of import penetration of the United Kingdom market for manufactures less food, drink, tobacco, printing and publishing. [29980]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The import penetration levels requested can be calculated only at disproportionate cost. My Department has made no assessment of the specific factors listed. However, the rising share of imports in the United Kingdom market for manufactures reflects a number of influences, including the increasing specialisation of world trade.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the share of imports in the United Kingdom market for manufactures; and over what time scale. [29949]

  Mr. Taylor
  The best way United Kingdom businesses can increase market share at home is by continually improving their competitiveness. The competitiveness White Paper,. "Forging Ahead" identifies areas where the Government have helped, for example, by stimulating enterprise and innovation and by encouraging best practice in quality, design and management. Discrimination against imports jeopardises the UK's export successes.

  Brent Spar
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what analysis or assessment(a) his Department or (b) any other Government Department or agency has made of the contents of the Brent Spar storage unit; what was the result of that analysis or assessment; and if he will publish the results of those analyses or assessment; [30247]

  (2) what inspections, analysis or assessment of the contents of the Brent Spar storage unit were made in the last 10 years by (a) his Department or (b) any other Government Department or agency; what were the results of these inspections, assessments or analyses; and if he will publish them in full. [30246]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government accepted Shell's proposal that deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar was the best
  373
  practicable environmental option. That judgment was reached after a comparative assessment of the options which took into account many factors including information on the contents of the installation. The abandonment programme contains a detailed inventory of the equipment and materials on board. Scottish Office officials who visited the Spar on 3 and 4 June verified that cleaning operations had been performed to the standard required.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trading standard officers were employed(a) for each year since 1979 and (b) at the latest available date. [28586]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information provided to my Department by local weights and measures authorities in England, Wales and Scotland indicates that since 1987–88 the number of qualified trading standards officers has been as follows:

  1987–88: 1,454

  1988–89: 1,438

  1989–90: 1,456

  1990–91: 1,504

  1991–92: 1,548

  1992–93: 1,598

  1993–94: 1,637

  Figures for preceding years are not readily available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trainee trading standards officers there were(a) for each year since 1979 and (b) for the latest available date. [28587]

  Mr. Evans
  Information provided to my Department by the local government management board indicates that numbers of trainee trading standards officers registered in each year since 1987 were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  98

  1988

  105

  1989

  102

  1990

  90

  1991

  91

  1992

  74

  1993

  36

  1994

  32

  1995

  24

  In addition, there were 24 graduates in the BSC honours consumer protection degree in 1994, of whom 15 are now in the process of becoming fully qualified trading standards officers.

  Figures for the preceding years are not readily available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the change in numbers of trainee trading standards officers since the end of the incentive training scheme for trading standards officers. [28588]

  Mr. Evans
  The Government are committed to a trading standards service which functions effectively and 374
  efficiently. It is for individual local authorities to ensure that numbers of qualified staff are sufficient to provide adequate levels of service in their respective areas and to make budgetary decisions which will reflect that need.

  In response to concerns about staffing levels my Department encouraged and supported the introduction of a grant scheme for trainee trading standards officers which began in 1987–488. The decision not to extend the term of this scheme beyond 1991 was taken by the local government management board on behalf of the local authority associations. Since that decision, total numbers of qualified staff have steadily increased from about 1,500 in 1990–91 to more than 1,630 in 1993–94.

  Mines Rescue Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the mines rescue service following the abolition of British Coal. [29900]

  Mr. Page
  At my Department's request, British Coal has established a working group on mines rescue to act as a forum for the coal industry to develop its plans for the future ownership and management of the mines rescue service. The working group also contains representatives from Government.

  Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amount of subsidy paid in respect of deep mined coal as outlined in "Prospects for Coal", the number of tonnes this reflects, the number of individual contracts involved and outstanding bids waiting the approval of the European Commission. [29901]

  Mr. Page
  Since the coal subsidy was announced in March 1993, 10 offers have been made. To date, £12,776,193 has been paid in respect of almost 1 million tonnes of coal delivered since April 1993. One application, which was received just before the scheme ended on 31 March 1995, is currently being considered.

  European Commission approval for payments in respect of production in 1993 was given in Commission decision C(94)883 of 29 March 1994. Approval for payments in respect of production the financial year 1994/95 was given in Commission decision C(94)1436 of 1 June 1994.

  Businesses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's definition of a small business and a medium-sized business. [29563]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: There is no single, official definition of what constitutes a small firm. There is, however, a wide range of definitions used in practice, each valid in its own context.

  Eligibility for the annual SMART competition—small firms merit award for research—is limited to firms with a maximum of 50 employees. Eligibility under the loan guarantee scheme, however, is determined by both turnover and employee numbers and these vary from sector to sector. Generally, eligibility is limited to firms with fewer than 200 employees, except in the construction

  375
  sector where the limit is 25. In the manufacturing sector the turnover ceiling is £3 million whereas in the service sector it is £500,000.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses were started up in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by region and by gender of entrepreneur. [29564]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The number of businesses stated up in Great Britain is available from 1988 onwards and given in the table. Almost all business start-ups are small. Information on start-ups by gender is not available for each year in the table. Research carried out for Barclays bank suggests that of the businesses started up in 1994, nearly three out of 10 were started by women.

  The best guide to trends in the number of businesses started up by region is given by registrations for VAT. Copies of "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses "1980–1991", and "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1992–1993" are in the Library of the House.

  Number of business start-ups 1988–1994 in Great Britain

  Year

  Starts (thousands)

  1988

  422

  1989

  447

  1990

  444

  1991

  374

  1992

  364

  1993

  405

  1994

  446

  Source: Barclays Economics Department.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed by(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by region and gender. [29565]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The number of people employed in businesses of different sizes are given in the table below. The figures are available for some of the last 10 years only. Although there is no official definition of what constitutes a small firm, the usual practice in statistical analyses is to consider firms with fewer than 100 employees small, and those with between 100 and 499 employees medium sized. There is no breakdown of these figures by region or gender.

  Number employed by size of business, UK 1986–1991, thousands

  Year

  Small (under 100 employees)

  Medium (100–499 employees)

  Large (500+ employees)

  All

  1986

  9,600

  3,300

  6,900

  19,800

  1988

  10,400

  3,600

  7,200

  21,300

  1989

  11,300

  3,300

  7,300

  21,900

  1990

  11,100

  3,600

  7,000

  21,700

  1991

  10,500

  3,400

  6,700

  20,600

  Source: NatWest Review of Small Business Trends, June 1993, June 1994.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which sectors of the economy(a) small businesses and (b) medium-sized businesses are predominantly to be found. [29566]
  376
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The numbers of businesses of different sizes in each industry division are given in the table. Although there is no official definition of what constitutes a small firm, the usual practice in statistical analyses is to consider firms with fewer than 100 employees small; and those with between 100 and 499 employees medium sized.

  Number of businesses by employee size class by sector, 1991 UK, number of businesses

  Industry (SIC80)

  Small (under 100 employees)

  Medium (100–499 employees)

  Large (500+employees)

  All

  All sectors1

  2,505,463

  16,090

  2,753

  2,524,306

  Energy and water supply

  2,432

  104

  67

  2,603

  Extraction

  15,477

  498

  209

  16,184

  Metal manufacture

  95,353

  1,739

  470

  97,562

  Other manufacturing

  175,853

  1,739

  474

  178,066

  Construction

  541,646

  664

  123

  542,433

  Distribution, hotels and catering

  654,123

  6,721

  567

  661,411

  Transport and communication

  146,042

  650

  90

  146,782

  Banking and finance

  377,351

  1,617

  450

  379,418

  Other services

  497,186

  2,358

  303

  499,847

  1 Excludes Agriculture, forestry and fishing.

  Source: Enterprises in Europe, Third Report.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28658]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. Ministers and civil servants will not necessarily share the Crown's immunity from criminal prosecution.

  The Government's policy on Crown immunity, as set out in CM1599—"The Citizen's Charter—Raising the Standard"—is that Crown immunity is being progressively reduced, as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as though they were bound by regulations.

  Detailed information on the circumstances where Crown immunity does not apply is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Codification Authority. [30865]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Codification Authority is part of RAF Logistics Command, and is responsible for the information and direction of MOD codification policy,
  377
  and the sponsorship and control of codification quality assurance services. It has been decided that the authority is to be considered for defence agency status under the next steps procedures. An entry to this effect will appear in the July 1995 edition of the "Market Testing Bulletin."

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for the chief executive of the Meteorological Office executive agency for the financial year 1995–96. [30866]

  Mr. Soames
  The agency has been set a range of quality, financial and efficiency targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the provision of weather-related services. In addition, the agency is to achieve trading fund status on 1 April 1996.

  The key quality targets set for the Meteorological Office during the financial year 1995–96 are to achieve 80 per cent. of the designated business plan external targets for customer satisfaction, forecast accuracy and timeliness; and to attain an average accuracy over the United Kingdom of at least 84 per cent. for the 24-hour national weather forecasts broadcast at 17.55 hours by BBC Radio 4.

  The financial targets are to deliver the agreed Meteorological Office programme within a business plan cash limit of £78,300,000; to reduce net expenditure, as shown in the annual report and accounts, to £90,300,000, representing a decrease of 2.6 per cent. on the 1994–95 budget, both at 1994–95 prices; and to provide a net contribution to the agency's core costs and general overheads of £3,800,000 from commercial services to the public, industry and commerce excluding the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of the Environment.

  Individual areas of the Meteorological Office have been set targets to increase efficiency by between 1 and 3 per cent. mainly through improvements in quality and volume of services and reduced unit output costs.

  Training Land
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas of land in Scotland not owned or leased by his Department, which are currently available to the armed services for training under licence agreements with the owners. [29073]

  Mr. Soames
  At present, there are 12 areas of land in Scotland where my Department holds military training rights under licence agreements. These are as follows:

  Binn Hill, Perthshire

  Blair Adam (Tayside)

  Galloway

  Kinlochleven (Lochaber)

  Tighnablair (Tayside)

  Hopsprigg (Dumfries and Galloway)

  Castle Kennedy (Stranraer)

  Ardgarten (Strathclyde)

  Balduff (Tayside)

  Tullymurdoch (Tayside)

  Fyall Farm (Tayside)

  Blackhall (Tayside)

  378
  In addition, there are other areas of land where my Department has agreements with private landowners to cover specific short-term requirements. In the last financial year, there were 356 such agreements.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications for information have been made to his Department under the environmental information resolutions since their entry into force; what was the total number of different applicants making the applications; in how many of these cases information was provided; what was the average total assessed cost of meeting each application; and what was the average cost charged to the applicant. [29082]

  Mr. Soames
  We have received six such requests for information since the regulations came into effect, and information has been provided in each case. The cost incurred by my Department in meeting the applications has amounted to less than £50 in each case. No charges have been levied for the information that has been provided, though in one case a request for more detailed information was withdrawn after a warning of charges.

  Chinook Crash, 2 June 1994
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the Chinook helicopter disaster at the Mull of Kintrye, Scotland; how many military police and civilian personnel lost their lives in this disaster; what compensation has been paid to the families of the victims; when he expects payment of compensation to be completed; and if he will make a statement about the basis of compensation to be paid to the dependants of those killed. [28982]

  Mr. Soames
  Twenty nine people were killed in this tragic accident on 2 June 1994. The position on compensation was explained in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 15 June,Official Report, column 597.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying incidents were reported in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [28482]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of inquiries and complaints received by my Department about military low flying in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1United Year Kingdom

  1992

  4,401

  904

  990

  6,295

  1993

  4,141

  556

  1,041

  5,738

  1994

  4,072

  617

  1,089

  5,778

  1 The figure for the United Kingdom excludes Northern Ireland where most low flying is of an operational nature, with only a limited number of training sorties. Complaints arising from this activity are dealt with locally, and no central record is available of the number received.

  379
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to monitor and deal with incidents of low flying by military aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [28483]

  Mr. Soames
  All complaints and inquiries about military low flying are recorded and examined and, when appropriate, a written response is given.

  Where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a breach of military flying regulations may have occurred, the details are passed to the RAF police for investigation. On completion, the RAF police report is, where appropriate, passed to the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned for consideration as to what further action may be necessary and what can be learnt from the incident. In each case, the complainant is provided with the conclusions and a summary of the findings of the report.

  My Department will pay compensation where a reasonable connection can be established between military aircraft activity and any loss, injury or damage sustained.

  Captured Service Men
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing and instructions are given to service men who may be captured or taken hostage about their response to their captors and the media. [29338]

  Mr. Soames
  In the event of capture by an enemy, service personnel are instructed to follow article 17 of the Geneva convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949 and reveal their name, rank, serial number and date of birth to their captors. They are also trained to respond to further questioning without releasing any useful information or allowing themselves to be exploited for propaganda purposes. Queen's regulations forbid service personnel from responding to approaches from the media without authorisation.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his(a) United States counterpart and (b) French counterpart concerning the development of simulations systems to replace nuclear tests; and if he will make a statement. [30041]

  Mr. Freeman
  In the absence of underground testing, we intend to develop further a range of experimental techniques and facilities for the stewardship of our nuclear weapons stockpile, including above ground experiments, lasers and computer simulation. This work will be undertaken in continuing co-operation with the United States. Discussions have also been held with French authorities on issues relating to nuclear weapons stewardship.

  Dartmouth Naval College
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per officer at the Dartmouth naval college; how many officers pass through Dartmouth naval college each year; and which Royal Navy training facilities are situated in Dartmouth. [30043]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  380
  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Dr. David Clark, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about the training of young Royal Naval officers at the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency.
  On entry to Dartmouth for Naval General Training, Young Naval Officers undertake 16 weeks shore-based training followed by a further 8 weeks of sea-based training, all of which is administered by the College. Following a further 8 months training in the Fleet, non-graduate entry Officers return to the College for an Academic course lasting some 24 weeks. The College is resourced for a training capacity of 460 (including Medical Dental, Special Duties and International Officers) which gives a cost per trainee day of £229.00 for the Naval General Training Course and £149.00 per day for the Academics Course.
  You will also wish to be aware that the Agency is developing initiatives with private industry and academic institutions to market the unallocated irreducible training capacity which is caused by fluctuating recruiting levels reflected in the figures quoted below. These initiatives will generate enduring income streams, thereby reducing the overall costs of the College.
  Over the last two years the officer training throughput has reduced in line with lower recruiting targets. From 1995 onwards higher recruiting targets will, however, increase trainee throughput to the level of the College's resourced capacity.
  The College's officer training throughput since 1991 is as follows:

  1991: 554

  1992: 465

  1993: 369

  1994: 220

  1995: 240*

  1996: 298*

  The above figures include RN Officers of Seaman, Engineer, Supply and Secretariat, Instructor, Medical, Dental, Chaplaincy and Special Duties specialisations in addition to international officers from Foreign and Commonwealth Navies. The figures marked by an asterisk denote predicted throughput figures.
  Seamanship training is provided at BRNC's Sandquay facility and the College's proximity to Dartmoor is utilised for leadership training activities.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons (Russia)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of Russia's(a) biological and (b) chemical capabilities; and if he will make a statement. [30042]

  Mr. Soames
  Russia inherited offensive chemical and biological warfare capabilities from the former Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Government place a high priority on confirming the elimination of the former Soviet programmes in accordance with the biological and toxin weapons convention and the chemical weapons convention; we are pursuing this objective through discussions with Russia and in multilateral arms control negotiations.

  Trident
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he is undertaking of the decision of June 1993 to award the refitting of Trident submarines to Devonport Management Ltd. and if he will make a statement. [30045]
  381
  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to revisit the decision taken in 1993 that future refitting of nuclear powered submarines will be undertaken at Devonport.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if a contract has been signed between his Department and Devonport Management. Lltd. for the refitting of Trident submarines; [30018]

  (2) when a contract will be signed between his Department and Devonport Management Ltd. for the refitting of Trident submarines following the decision of June 1993; and if he will make a statement. [30044]

  Mr. Freeman
  No contract has yet been awarded for the construction of the Trident refitting facilities at Devonport. Negotiations with Devonport Management Ltd. are continuing with a view to completing the process by the end of the summer.

  Table A

  Year (1 April)

  Home Counties

  London and South East

  Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Wales and South West

  Yorkshire and North East

  Total

  1991

  116.5

  118

  167

  116.5

  90

  101

  132

  841

  1992

  135.5

  124.5

  176.5

  119.9

  97

  112

  126.5

  891.5

  1993

  132

  117.5

  182.5

  117

  102.5

  107

  133

  891.5

  1994

  136.5

  126

  182.5

  125

  103.5

  97.5

  127.5

  898.5

  1995

  119

  116

  165

  112.5

  94

  97.5

  123

  827

  Note:

  1 April 1995 figure reflects the immediate effects of an early retirement exercise. A new recruitment campaign is intended to restore the total number of inspectors in FOD to around previous levels.

  Table B

  Year (1 April)

  South Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire

  Scottish and North Eastern

  Wales and South Eastern

  South West

  North Midlands

  Total

  1991

  6

  6

  2

  7

  6

  6

  33

  Year (1 April)

  Central

  Northern

  Western

  Southern

  Total

  1992

  6

  8

  7

  6

  27

  1993

  —

  9

  4

  5

  18

  1994

  —

  7

  5

  5

  17

  Year (1 April)

  Scotland and East England

  Wales and West England

  Total

  1995

  10

  5

  15

  Note:
  Mines Central and Northern Districts merged 1 April 1993.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the year-on-year change in employment in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) the United States of America, (d) Germany and (e) Japan, for each year since 1979. [28119]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information showing the levels of employment in France, the United States, western Germany and Japan is published in OECD labour force statistics, 1972–92 and OECD quarterly labour force statistics no. 1, 1995. Copies of these publications are

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors were in post in each region in each of the last five years. [29359]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Table A shows the number of health and safety inspectors employed in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division regions. The figures comprise factory inspectors, agricultural inspectors, specialist inspectors and quarries inspectors. Table B shows the number of mines inspectors in the Mines Inspectorate, which is organised in districts. The figures are for the 1 April for each year. They do not include HSE inspectors working in nationally organised inspectorates; nor inspectors employed by other enforcing authorities.

  available in the Library. The latest available information for the United Kingdom which may differ from that printed in these publications is shown in the table:

  Total civilian employment1 in the United Kingdom at June of each year: year-on-year changes 1979–1994

  Year

  Thousands

  1979–80

  -57

  1980–81

  -972

  1981–82

  -429

  1982–83

  -281

  1983–84

  648

  1984–85

  285

  1985–86

  29

  1986–87

  560

  1987–88

  855

  1988–89

  804

  1989–90

  270

  1990–91

  -880

  1991–92

  -530

  1992––93

  -364

  1993–94

  37

  1 Unadjusted for seasonal variation.

  Food Manufacturing Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many reportable accidents have occurred in the food manufacturing industry in each region in each of the last five years. [29357]
  383
  Mr. Opppenheim
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Injuries to workers1 in the food manufacturing industry2 as reported to the health and safety executives's (HSE's) field operations division inspectorates and local authorities

  HSE region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Wales and South West

  1,064

  1,155

  1,224

  1,245

  1,115

  Home Counties

  2,350

  2,041

  2,124

  1,946

  1,853

  London and South East

  1,087

  1,007

  898

  790

  761

  Midlands

  2,602

  2,484

  2,344

  2,172

  2,122

  Yorkshire and North East

  2,673

  2,688

  2,764

  2,530

  2,188

  North West

  2,051

  1,909

  1,871

  1,860

  1,676

  Scotland

  1,165

  1,196

  1,053

  952

  853

  1 The term workers relates to employees (including trainees) and the self-employed.

  2 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 activity headings 4115 to 4239.

  Data shown in the table prior to 1990–91 excludes reports made to the Quarries Inspectorate.

  Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to amend the budgeting system for training courses for areas where there is high long-term unemployment. [29717]

  Mr. Paice
  Training for work is the main programme for adults out of work for a long time or at a disadvantage. The budget for the programme is distributed to training and enterprise councils by reference to the numbers of long-term unemployed, past levels of expenditure and performance in securing outcomes for participants. Budgets are also subject to negotiations between Government offices and individual TECs.

  South Thames TEC
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the total bill of his Department to the administrative receiver of South Thames TEC; and what assessment he has made of its impact on the other creditors' prospects of debt recovery. [29625]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department estimates that it is owed £8.48 million by South Thames training and enterprise council and has presented the receiver with a bill to that effect. The Department is a secured creditor under the terms of its debenture. Until the receiver has completed his work, it will not be possible to assess the impact of the Department's bill on the prospects for unsecured creditors recovering money owed them.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the administrative cost for(a) the preparation for the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance and (b) the actual implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. [29727]
  384
  Miss Widdecombe
  Initial estimates of the one-off administrative costs of implementing the jobseeker's allowance, including both preparation and actual implementation, and the back-to-work bonus were £280 million over the period 1995–96 to 1997–98. This figure is currently being reviewed, following the decision to defer the full operation of JSA to October 1996.

  Workplace Accidents (Children)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of surveys and official statistics on the number of school-age children involved in accidents while in paid employment in each year since 1985. [30287]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The survey reports of which I am aware are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and inadequately distinguish between serious accidents which should be reported to the enforcing authorities and minor cuts and bruises.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what statistics are available concerning the number of accidents to school-age children involved in paid employment in the years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [30288]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The tables show injuries to employed people aged under 16 reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates and to local authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985:

  Injuries to employees1 aged under 16 reported to HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and Local Authorities, 1992–93 and 1993–94 by industry

  Industry

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Agriculture

  10

  5

  Manufacturing

  2

  10

  Construction

  3

  4

  Wholesale distribution

  —

  1

  Retail distribution

  9

  4

  Hotels and catering

  3

  2

  Repair of consumer goods and vehicles

  1

  —

  Transport and communication

  —

  —

  Banking, finance and business services

  —

  1

  Other services

  7

  7

  Unclassified

  1

  —

  Total

  36

  34

  Injuries to employees1 aged under 16 reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities, 1992–93 and 1993–94 by severity of injury

  Year

  Fatal

  Major2

  Over 3 day3

  Total

  1992–93

  1

  11

  24

  36

  1993–94

  1

  16

  17

  34

  Total

  2

  27

  41

  70

  Notes:

  1 including trainees.

  2 as defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985, and including injuries which require a stay in hospital of over 24 hours.

  3 injuries which cause absence from work for more than three days.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department(a) collects and (b) collates information and statistics concerning the incidence of accidents to children in paid employment who are of school-leaving age. [30289]
  385
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, employers have a duty to report to the relevant enforcing authority injuries, arising out of work activity, to employees of all ages. The relevant authority may be either the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority.

  Reports made to HSE are collated and held centrally. Information from reports made to local authorities is submitted annually to HSE on a voluntary basis and aggregated with the reports made direct to HSE.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available for each year since 1985 concerning children involved in accidents while in paid(a) agricultural and (b) horticultural employment; [30286]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The table shows injuries to employees aged under 16 reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 in each year for which reliable figures are available. The figure in brackets show the only injury reported in Wales.

  Injuries to employees1 aged under 16 in agriculture and horticulture2 reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities, from 1987–88 to 1993–94—by severity of injury

  Year

  Fatal

  Major3

  Over 3 day3

  Total

  1987–88

  1

  8

  5

  14

  1988–89

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1989–90

  —

  5

  4

  9

  1990–91

  —

  1

  4

  5

  1991–92

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1992–93

  —

  6

  4(1)

  10(1)

  1993–94

  1

  3

  1

  5

  Notes:

  1 Including trainees.

  2 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 01

  3 As defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985, and including injuries which require a stay in hospital of over 24 hours.

  4 Injuries which cause absence from work for more than three days.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what assessment has been made of surveys and official statistics on the number of school-age children in Wales involved in accidents while engaged in paid(a) agricultural and (b) horticultural employment in each year since 1985; [30285]

  (2) what assessment has been made of surveys and official statistics on the number of school-age children in Wales involved in accidents while engaged in paid (a) agricultural and (b) horticultural employment in each year since 1985. [30283]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The survey reports of which I am aware are unrepresentative of Wales and the country as a whole and inadequately distinguish serious accidents which should be reported to the enforcing authorities from minor cuts and bruises.
  386
  The official statistics show that one injury was reported in Wales in the period, from 1987–88 to 1993–94, for which reliable figures are —available.

  International Labour Organisation Conventions
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those International Labour Organisation conventions which the United Kingdom has signed and the year of signature. [30228]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the table:

  ILO conventions ratified by the United Kingdom

  Number

  Date of ratification

  2 Unemployment, 1919

  1921

  4 Night Work (Women), 19191

  1921

  5 Minimum Age (Industry), 1919

  1921

  6 Night Work of Young Persons (Industry), 19191

  1921

  7 Minimum Age (Sea), 1920

  1921

  8 Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck), 1920

  1926

  10 Minimum Age (Agriculture), 1921

  1963

  11 Right of Association (Agriculture), 1921

  1923

  12 Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture), 1921

  1923

  15 Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers), 1921

  1926

  16 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea), 1921

  1926

  17 Workmen's Compensation (Accidents), 1925

  1949

  18 Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases), 19251

  1926

  19 Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation), 1925

  1926

  21 Inspection of Emigrants, 1926

  1927

  22 Seamen's Articles of Agreement, 1926

  1929

  23 Repatriation of Seamen, 1926

  1985

  24 Sickness Insurance (Industry), 1927

  1931

  25 Sickness Insurance (Agriculture), 1927

  1931

  26 Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, 19281

  1929

  29 Forced Labour, 1930

  1931

  32 Protection Against Accidents (Dockers) (Revised), 1932

  1935

  35 Old-Age Insurance (Industry etc), 1933

  1936

  36 Old-Age Insurance (Agriculture), 1933

  1936

  37 Invalidity Insurance (Industry, etc), 1933

  1936

  38 Invalidity Insurance (Agriculture), 1933

  1936

  39 Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc), 1933

  1936

  40 Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture), 1933

  1936

  41 Night Work (Women) (Revised), 19341

  1937

  42 Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) (Revised), 1934

  1936

  43 Sheet-Glass Works, 19341

  1937

  44 Unemployment Provision, 1934

  1936

  45 Underground Work (Women), 19351

  1936

  50 Recruiting of Indigenous Workers, 1936

  1939

  56 Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936

  1944

  63 Statistics of Wages and Hours of Work, 19381

  1947

  64 Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939

  1943

  65 Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939

  1943

  68 Food and Catering (Ships' Crews), 1946

  1953

  69 Certification of Ships' Cooks, 1946

  1949

  70 Social Security (Seafarers), 1946

  1953

  74 Certification of Able Seamen, 1946

  1952

  80 Final Articles Revision, 1946

  1947

  81 Labour Inspection, 1947

  1949

  387

  Date

  82 Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947

  1950

  83 Labour Standards (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947

  1950

  84 Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947

  1950

  85 Labour Inspectorates (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947

  1950

  86 Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1947

  1950

  87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948

  1949

  88 Employment Service, 19481

  1949

  92 Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 1949

  1953

  94 Labour Clauses (Public Contracts), 19491

  1950

  95 Protection of Wages, 19491

  1951

  97 Migration for Employment (Revised), 1949

  1951

  98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949

  1950

  99 Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery (Agriculture), 19491

  1953

  100 Equal Remuneration, 1951

  1971

  101 Holidays with Pay (Agriculture), 19521

  1956

  102 Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952

  1954

  105 Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957

  1957

  108 Seafarers' Identity Documents, 1958

  1964

  114 Fishermen's Articles of Agreement, 1959

  1974

  115 Radiation Protection 1960

  1962

  116 Final Articles Revision, 1961

  1962

  120 Hygiene (Commerce and Offices), 1964

  1967

  122 Employment Policy, 1964

  1966

  124 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work), 1965

  1966

  126 Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen), 1966

  1985

  133 Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions), 1970

  1981

  135 Workers' Representatives, 1971

  1973

  140 Paid Educational Leave, 1974

  1975

  141 Rural Workers' Organisations, 1975

  1977

  142 Human Resources Development, 1975

  1977

  144 Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards), 1976

  1977

  147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 1976

  1980

  148 Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration), 1977

  1979

  150 Labour Administration, 1978

  1980

  151 Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978

  1980

  160 Labour Statistics, 1985

  1987

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those International Labour Organisation conventions which the United Kingdom has(a) declined to sign and (b) not yet signed. [30226]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom reviews its position on unratified conventions on a regular basis. The United Kingdom has not yet signed the following conventions:

  ILO conventions not ratified by the United Kingdom

  Number

  1 Hours of Work (Industry), 1919

  3 Maternity Protection, 1919

  9 Placing of Seamen, 1920

  13 White Lead (Painting), 1921

  14 Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921

  20 Night Work (Bakeries), 1925

  21 Inspection of Emigrants, 19261

  27 Marking of Weight (Packages Transported by Vessels), 1929

  388

  28 Protection Against Accidents (Dockers), 19302

  30 Hours of Work (Coal Mines), 1931

  33 Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment), 1932

  34 Fee-Charging Employment Agencies, 19332

  46 Hours of Work (Coal Mines) (Revised), 1935

  47 Forty Hour Week, 1935

  48 Maintenance of Migrants' Pension Rights, 19352

  49 Reduction of Hours of Work (Glass-Bottle Works), 1935

  51 (Reduction of Hours of Work (Public Works), 1936

  52 Holidays with Pay, 19362

  53 Officers' Competency Certificates, 1936

  54 Holidays with Pay (Sea), 19362

  55 Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 1936

  57 Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)

  58 Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936

  59 Minimum Age (Industry) (Revised), 1937

  60 Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment) (Revised), 1937

  61 Reduction of Hours of Work (Tickets), 1937 (out of date)

  62 Safety Provisions (Building), 1937

  66 Migration for Employment, 1938

  67 Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport), 19392

  71 Seafarers' Pensions, 1946

  72 Paid Vacations (Seafarers), 19462

  73 Medical Examination (Seafarers), 1946

  75 Accommodation of Crews, 19462

  76 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1946

  77 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry), 1946

  78 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations), 1946

  79Night Work of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations), 1946

  81 Labour Inspection, 1947 (Only ratified Part I)

  89 Night Work (Women) (Revised), 1948

  90 Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) (Revised), 1948

  91 Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised), 19492

  93 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised) 2

  96 Fee-Charging Employment Agencies (Revised) 1949

  97 Migration for Employment (Revised) 1949 (Not ratified the provisions of Annexes I and III)

  102 Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952 (only ratified Parts II to V, VII and X

  103 Maternity Protection (Revised), 1952

  104 Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1955

  106 Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices), 1957

  107 Indigenous and Tribal populations, 1957

  109 Wages, Hours of Work and manning (Sea) (Revised), 1958

  110 Plantations, [and Protocol, 1982], 1958

  111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958

  112 Minimum Age (Fishermen), 1959

  113 Medical Examination (Fishermen), 1959

  117 Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards), 1962

  118 Equality of Treatment (Social Security), 1962

  119 Guarding of Machinery, 1963

  121 Employment Injury Benefits, 1964

  123 Minimum Age (Underground Work), 1965

  125 Fishermen's Competency Certificates, 1966

  127 Maximum Weight, 1967

  128 Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors Benefits, 1967

  389

  130 Medical Care and Sickness Benefits, 1969

  131 Minimum Wage Fixing, 1970

  132 Holidays With Pay (Revised), 1970

  134 Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers), 1970

  136 Benzene, 1971

  137 Dock Work, 1973

  138 Minimum Age, 1973

  139 Occupational Cancer, 1974

  143 Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions), 1975

  145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 1976

  146 Seafarers Annual Leave with Pay, 1976

  148 Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration), 1977 (Accepted only in respect of air pollution)

  149 Nursing Personnel, 1977

  152 Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work), 1979

  153 Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport), 1979

  154 Collective Bargaining, 1981

  155 Occupational Safety and Health, 1981

  156 Workers with Family Responsibilities, 1981

  157 Maintenance of Social Security Rights, 1982

  158 Termination of Employment, 1982

  159 Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons), 1983

  161 Occupational Health Services, 1985

  162 Asbestos, 1986

  163 Seafarers' Welfare, 1987

  164 Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers), 1987

  165 Social Security (Seafarers) (Revised), 1987

  166 Repatriation of Seafarers (Revised), 1987

  167 Safety and Health in Construction, 1988

  168 Employment Promotion and Protection Against Unemployment, 1988

  169 Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1989

  170 Chemicals 1990

  171 Night Work Convention, 1990

  172 Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) 1991

  173 Protection of Workers' Claims (Employment Insolvency) 1992

  174 Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents 1993

  175 Part-Time Work 1994

  1 Conditional.

  1 Closed to further ratification by Member States.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will describe the technical and expert assistance which the United Kingdom has provided to the International Labour Organisation in each of the last 10 years. [30227]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The areas where assistance is provided include health and safety and statistics. The information requested is not, however, held centrally by the Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Organophosphorus Products
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of(a) sheep farms and (b) market gardens which may be expected to use organophosphorus products are visited by inspectors each year to check on protective measures when handling these products. [29734]
  390
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: It is impossible to predict in advance the sheep farms or market gardens that use organophosphorus products. However, in the course of routine visits to these premises, health and safety inspectors inquire about compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, which apply to the use of organophosphorus products, including sheep dips.

  Visits are, of course, supplemented by published guidance and by advice through other means.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28652]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The Employment Department group consists of the Employment Department, the Employment Service, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend on the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

  The Government's general policy on Crown immunity is set out in the "Citizen's Charter—Raising the Standard", Cm 1599.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many of those people who are no longer eligible to receive unemployment benefit will be eligible for income support(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire. [29922]

  (2) following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, how many people will no longer be eligible for unemployment benefit (a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire; [29922]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Jobseeker's Bill unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people will be replaced by jobseeker's allowance in October 1996. Contributory entitlement to jobseeker's allowance will end after six months. On current assumptions, at any one time 165,000 people in Great Britain would be in receipt of unemployment benefit beyond six months. It is estimated that income-based jobseeker's allowance would offset the difference fully for 30,000 of these, and partially, for a further 65,000. Separate estimates for Nottinghamshire are not available.

  Notes:

  1. Caseload estimates rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Estimates assume 2.4 million unemployed claimants and 500,000 Unemployment Benefit cases.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Reckless Driving
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to amend the criminal law to ensure that where reckless and dangerous driving results in death or injury the penalties will be appropriate.

  Mr. Maclean
  Parliament has increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to 10 years. But it is entirely up to the courts and judges to impose the right sentence in each case.

  Learmont Inquiry
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of the Learmont inquiry into the breakout at Parkhurst prison in January. [28409]

  Mr. Howard
  I have not yet received the report.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made on installing closed circuit television in town centres. [28410]

  Mr. Maclean
  Many local authorities and partnerships have installed closed circuit television systems in their town centres and other areas. The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million of prize money into 106 CCTV schemes across the country. These schemes will generate up to £13.8 million in matching funding from other sources, including the private sector.

  Police
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of policemen serving in the United Kingdom. [28411]

  Mr. Howard
  At the end of March 1995, there were approximately 150,000 police officers in the United Kingdom. In addition I understand that there were around 3,200 full-time RUC reserves.

  Police Operations
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the report of the National Audit Office on controls over indirectly funded operations of the police service. [28412]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Committee of Public Accounts considered this report on 14 June. The Government will respond to the Committee's recommendations when they are received.

  Immigration Service Interpreters
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in improving the provision of interpreters for the immigration service following the report of the complaints audit committee. [28413]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  While the provision of interpreters for the immigration service is generally 392
  satisfactory, the recommendations of the complaints audit committee are under consideration. A new training package is being devised and a review of the arrangements under which interpreter services are provided to immigration and nationality department is planned under the Department's "Competing for Quality" programme. This review will examine both the quality and cost effectiveness of the arrangements.

  Police Funding
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage police funding has changed since 1979 in real terms. [28414]

  Mr. Maclean
  Expenditure on the police in England and Wales has increased by 96 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1995–96.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the Home Office's expenditure on crime prevention in the last year for which figures are available. [28416]

  Mr. Maclean
  Expenditure on crime prevention activities across Government in 1993–94—the latest period for which the figures are available—was £240 million. Expenditure on specific Home Office crime prevention initiatives in 1994–95 was £18.3 million, an increase of 9.7 per cent. on the previous year.

  Memorandum of Good Practice
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise the memorandum of good practice to include an unambiguous statement that it is possible for a child to receive therapy. [28417]

  Mr. Maclean
  The memorandum already states that it should be possible for a child to receive therapy once a video recording of the child's evidence-in-chief has been made. We are considering whether the guidance on this and other points in the memorandum needs to be revised in the light of research and experience to date.

  Prison Discipline
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to introduce more punitive practices in British prisons. [28418]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no immediate plans to introduce more punitive practices into prisons. However, the policy on prison discipline is kept under review and, where necessary, changes are made to ensure it remains at a proper level to maintain good order in prisons.

  Drug Abuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of drug abuse within prisons. [28419]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Any level of drug abuse in prison is unacceptable; the presence of drugs leads to violence, bullying and intimidation and undermines regimes. Tackling drug abuse is one of the four key priorities for the Prison Service for this year. The new
  393
  mandatory drug testing programme will provide routine and detailed monitoring of the level and type of drug misuse in prison.

  A wide range of measures are being taken up to prevent drugs from entering prisons. These include the increased use of drug dogs; more effective searching of prisoners, staff and visitors; the use of closed-circuit television cameras during visits; and the imposition of closed visits for prisoners found guilty of drug offences in prison.

  All Prison Service establishments provide detoxification, education and counselling facilities to prisoners with drug misuse problems via the health care centre, probation department or community drug agencies. This year the Prison Service will be substantially expanding the number and type of drug treatment programmes. These will include: therapeutic communities; three-month treatment programmes; detoxification units; intensive counselling and education services; and community-linked throughcare programmes.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to counter drug taking in prisons. [28422]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Reducing the level of drug misuse is one of the four key priorities in the Prison Service this year. The Prison Service's strategy requires all prison governors to implement local strategies directed at the reduction of the misuse of drugs.

  Capital and Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received urging him to restore to the courts the options of both capital and corporal punishment. [28420]

  Mr. Maclean
  I receive numerous representations on the restoration of both corporal and capital punishment from a variety of sources.

  Prison Staffing and Conditions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had about prison staffing and conditions with the Director General of the Prison Service. [28421]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had a number of recent discussions with the Director General of the Prison Service. A wide range of issues were discussed, including general staffing matters and prison conditions.

  Prison Conditions
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make any new proposals concerning prison conditions. [28423]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Policy on prison conditions is kept under constant review and modifications are made from time to time as the need arises. The Prison Service business plan 1995–96 and the Prison Service corporate plan 1995–98, published on 2 May, contain full details of Prison Service priorities and targets for the next three years, and set out how these will be achieved. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the sentences of Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz. [28424]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall reconsider the tariff—that is the minimum period to be served by these mandatory life sentence prisoners—in the light of all the representations made by them or on their behalf.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the effects of reductions in section 11 funding in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [28425]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 22 November my right hon. and learned Friend announced an extra £30 million over two years for new section 11 projects beginning in 1995–96. This means that the section 11 programme is supporting projects worth some £58 million. This is in addition to the £27 million of former section 11 projects continuing under the SRB, and in addition to SRB funded regeneration projects, 35 per cent. of which include initiatives specifically designed to benefit ethnic minorities. In all, this amounts to a sizeable and continuing Government commitment.

  Cheshire Constabulary
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Cheshire constabulary's front-line policing policy; and if he will make a statement. [28426]

  Mr. Maclean
  I was pleased to note that crime in Cheshire fell by 7 per cent. in 1994, while the detection rate rose by 4 percentage points. The objectives set in the Cheshire policing plan for 1995–96 should enable this welcome trend to be maintained.

  Home Security
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much home security support he is arranging for householders in the metropolitan area; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [28551]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has no funds for the direct provision of security support to individual householders, although we do run regular information campaigns on various aspects of crime prevention. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that his officers actively supports neighbourhood watch schemes and other local crime prevention initiatives; and offer home security advice to householders, including domestic surveys. His successful campaign against burglary—Operation Bumblebee—has also raised public awareness about home security.

  Costings for the relevant elements of the Commissioner's work are not available centrally.

  Assembly and Trespass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as it relates to assembly and trespass; and if he will make a statement. [29051]

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 70 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended part II of the Public Order Act 1986 by inserting two new sections to deal with trespassory assemblies. They provide for chief officers of police to apply to the appropriate local council for an order prohibiting the holding of all trespassory assemblies within a given area for a period of not more than four days, where they reasonably believe that a trespassory assembly will be held which might result in serious disruption to local residents or significant damage to a site of historical, architectural, archaeological or scientific importance.

  The consent of my right hon. and learned Friend to the making of an order is required. This ensures that they are as restricted and selective in scope as is necessary to meet the objective of protecting the community. Since these provisions came into force my right hon. and learned Friend has given his consent to Salisbury district council making two such orders which applied to a four mile radius of Stonehenge between 29 May and 1 June and 17 and 21 June. The enforcement of these orders is an operational matter for the chief officer of Wiltshire constabulary. No other orders have been made under the section.

  We are continuing to monitor the other public order measures in part V of the Act but it will be some time before we are able to assess their effectiveness.

  Crime
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of recent exercises in co-ordinated action against crime by the Metropolitan and county police forces. [29106]

  Mr. Maclean
  I would like to congratulate the forces which participated in the co-ordinated operation on 2 May against those involved in burglary; officers from 22 forces across the south of England and Wales searched 1,828 addresses, made over 1,300 arrests and recovered large quantities of stolen property.

  I fully support police operations that send a clear message to criminals, and their victims, that effective action is being taken against crime.

  Security Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a licensing system for the private security industry. [28415]

  Mr. Maclean
  The case for a licensing system is currently being considered. The report published recently by the Home Affairs Select Committee made a number of very helpful recommendations on this issue, and I shall respond to it soon.

  Visitors Passports and Excursion Documents
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish British visitors passports and British excursion documents in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [30391]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 20 December 1994,Official Report columns 1214–15.

  Local Taxation (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were imprisoned in England and Wales for non-payment of council tax, poll tax or rates in each year since 1991. [30280]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking how many (a) men and (b) women were imprisoned in England and Wales for non-payment of council tax, community charge or rates in each year since 1991.
  Information for 1991 and 1992 is published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (table 6.3 of the 1992 edition, Cm. 2581), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Provisional information for 1993 and 1994 is given in the attached table.

  Receptions of non-criminal prisoners into prison service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of rates or community charge, 1993–1994.

  19931

  19941

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Non-payment of rates

  173

  21

  98

  16

  Non-payment of community charge

  1,249

  177

  1,173

  188

  1 Provisional figures.

  Obscenity
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the working group on obscenity; and if he will list the topics which have been discussed. [30019]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The group has met twice so far. The main topics discussed have been the use of computer networks for the importation and dissemination of obscene and indecent material, the enforcement of laws against child pornography, the display of indecent material in newsagents and the need for further research in the area of obscenity.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) all sentenced prison receptions and (b) all receptions of prisoners sentenced to six months or less consisted of fine defaulters in England and Wales in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [30278]
  397
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what proportion of (a) all sentenced prison receptions and (b) all receptions of prisoners sentenced to six months or less consisted of fine defaulters in England and Wales in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of all sentenced receptions and receptions of persons sentenced to less than 6 months, 1993 and 19941

  Per cent.

  1993

  1994

  Percentage of all sentenced receptions

  30.7

  27.2

  Percentage of receptions sentenced to less than six months

  48.3

  41.5

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many(a) males and (b) females were imprisoned in 1993 and 1994, respectively, for non-payment of fines; and what were the numbers of cases where the original fines were imposed for (i) motoring offences, (ii) theft and handling, (iii) drunkenness, and (iv) non-payment of television licences. [30277]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 June 1995.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) males and (b) females were imprisoned in 1993 and 1994, respectively, for non-payment of fines; and what were the numbers of cases where the original fines were imposed for (i) motoring offences, (ii) theft and handling, (iii) drunkenness, and (iv) non-payment of television licences.
  Provisional information for 1993 and 1994 is given in the attached table.

  Receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1993–1994

  Offence

  19931Males

  Females

  19941Males

  Females

  Theft and handling

  3,802

  265

  2,341

  186

  Drunkenness

  633

  24

  329

  10

  Motoring offences

  8,141

  202

  6,432

  198

  Using a TV without a licence

  547

  278

  503

  260

  Not recorded

  82

  16

  2,775

  125

  All receptions

  21,097

  1,306

  21,303

  1,420

  1 Provisional figures. The 1994 figures for types of offence are affected by a larger "not recorded" component.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the proportion of the average daily population of(a) all sentenced prisoners and (b) all prisoners serving sentences of six months or less consisting of fine defaulters in England and Wales in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [30279]
  398
  Mr. Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the proportion of the average daily population of (a) all sentenced prisoners and (b) all prisoners serving sentences of six months or less, consisting of fine defaulters in England and Wales in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.
  The information requested is given in the table attached.

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of the average sentenced population and average population sentenced to less than 6 months, 1993 and 19941

  1993

  1994

  Percentage of average sentenced population

  1.5

  1.2

  Percentage of average sentenced population sentenced to less than six months

  12.6

  9.9

  1 Sentenced population includes fine defaulters but excludes sentenced prisoners held in police cells.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners were received into jails in England and Wales in lieu of fine default during 1994; and how many were received for non-payment of fines in relation to(a) community charge offences, (b) television licence offences, (c) soliciting and loitering, (d) motoring offences and (e) other offences which were themselves non-imprisonable. [24270]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available provisional information of receptions of female fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in 1994 is given in the table. Receptions for non-payment of community charge tax or council tax are not classified as receptions for fine default and are not therefore included in the table. Provisional information, however, shows that 188 females were received into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales for non-payment of community charge in 1994. Separate information is not centrally available on fine default for loitering or for other non-imprisonable offences.

  Receptions of female fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 19941

  Offence

  Number

  Using a TV without a licence

  260

  Soliciting

  24

  Motoring offences

  198

  Other offences

  815

  All receptions

  1,420

  1 Provisional figures.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners were received into gaols in England and Wales for fine default in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many were received for non-payment of (a) community charge, (b) TV licence, (c) motor offences, (d) sexual offences and (e) other offences which were themselves not imprisonable. [26896]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The available provisional information for receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments for 1992–1994 is given in table 1. Non-imprisonable offences are not separately identifiable
  399
  from the offence information held centrally. Those received into prison for non-payment of community charge or council tax are non-criminal prisoners rather than fine defaulters. Information about receptions of such prisoners is given in table 2.

  Information on fine defaulters and non-criminal receptions is published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales"—tables 6.2 and 7.2 of the 1992 edition, Cm 2581, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The power to imprison fine defaulters should be used only as a final sanction where the court has inquired into the offender's means and is satisfied that the default is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect and has considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum and it appears to the court that they are inappropriate or unsuccessful. In the case of defaulters aged 18 to 20 the court may, instead of issuing a warrant of committal, make an attendance centre order if such a disposal is available locally.

  When a fine has been imposed on an offender by a court it may require immediate payment, allow time for payment, or order payment by instalments. If it orders payment by instalments it may at the same time, if the court deems it appropriate, make a money payments supervision order or, if the offender requests it, make an attachment of earnings order.

  If an offender subsequently defaults on payment then the court is required to inquire again into his or her financial circumstances. A fine may be remitted in whole or in part where the original sentence was imposed on the basis of insufficient information about the financial

  Table 1

  Receptions of fine defaulters into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1992 to 1994

  1992

  11993

  11994

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Using A TV without a licence

  405

  163

  547

  278

  503

  260

  Motoring offences

  6,139

  146

  8,141

  202

  6,432

  198

  Sexual offences

  29

  1

  27

  —

  12

  —

  Other offences

  10,797

  639

  12,300

  540

  11,581

  839

  Not recorded

  1,412

  95

  82

  16

  2,775

  125

  All receptions

  18,782

  1.044

  21,097

  1,306

  21,303

  1,420

  1 Provisional figures.

  Table 2

  Receptions of non-criminal prisoners into Prison Service establishments for non-payment of community charge 1992–1994

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1992

  476

  28

  19931

  1,249

  177

  19941

  1,173

  188

  1 Provisional figures.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy that the passports of wards of court and other children at risk of child abduction be endorsed with details of relevant court orders. [30392]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Consideration is currently being given by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office to the question of the endorsement of the passports
  400
  circumstances of the offender or if circumstances have changed since the conviction. Periodical payments or further time to pay may be ordered in cases where that would be appropriate.

  The magistrates court enforcing the fine may also use any of the following range of powers available to it:

  it can make a money payments supervision order;

  it can make an attachment of earnings order;

  it can make an application for deductions to be made from an offender's income support; and

  it may issue a distress warrant where the defaulter has goods which may be sold to meet the fine;

  where the defaulter is under 18:
  the parent or guardian, whose consent must be obtained, can be ordered to enter into a recognisance to ensure the defaulter pays, provided the court is satisfied the defaulter has had the means to pay and has refused or neglected to pay; or
  the parent or guardian can be ordered to pay the fine provided the court is satisfied the defaulter has had the means to pay and has refused or neglected to pay.

  A working group on the enforcement of financial penalties has been set up by the Lord Chancellor's Department to identify and promote good practice in the enforcement of financial penalties and recommend procedural, administrative or legislative changes which would improve the enforcement of financial penalties. A study has also been commissioned by the Home Office research and planning unit to examine the use made of each of the enforcement methods available to the courts. The findings of the study will help to inform the considerations of the working group.

  of children at risk of child abduction. It is not possible at this stage to indicate the likely outcome of this process.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the work of his Department in the field of child abduction over the past year; and what work is planned in the year ahead. [30388]

  Mr. Maclean
  In association with REUNITE—the National Council for Abducted Children—officials and police officers have been reviewing police practice in this field. It is hoped that some guidance materials for parents and police officers will be produced.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many known cases there have been of child abduction from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [30390]

  Mr. Maclean
  No information is collected centrally on the number of children abducted from the United Kingdom.

  Medical Research
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make lottery money available for medical research. [30297]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The distribution of the share of lottery proceeds which is allocated for charitable expenditure is a matter for the National Lottery Charities Board. The board has stated that, in its first grants programme, on which it expects to make awards in October, it is placing a high priority on funding organisations working with people on low incomes and that applications from medical research charities which meet this criterion will be considered by the board in line with these priorities. The board has also said that in addition, applications from medical research charities for other projects will also be considered in the first programme, if the application is for an exceptional project or initiative. The board has yet to announce its priorities for future grant rounds.

  Mrs. Ifat Shaheen Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department received a request from the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to interview the sponsor of Mrs. Ifat Shaheen Hussain (Ref: Imm/C6283); when the sponsor is to be interviewed; and if he will make a statement. [30069]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The request from the British high commission in Islamabad for an interview of Mrs. Ifat Shaheen Hussain's sponsor was received by the Home Office on 28 February 1995. The papers are, at present, with the immigration service, at Leeds—Bradford airport who will contact Mrs. Hussain's sponsor to arrange an interview in due course.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are at present being held in prisons in England and Wales. [29545]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 15 June 1995, a total of 240 persons who had at some stage sought asylum in the United Kingdom were detained in Prison Service establishments. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum applications made by people with leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors in 1994 was made before the leave to enter expired. [29461]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Seventy per cent. of asylum applications from people with leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors in 1994 were made before the leave to enter expired.

  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in accidents involving police vehicles in each of the last five years. [29514]
  402
  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information on casualties in police vehicle accidents in England and Wales is for the period 1989–1993 and is given in the following table. The figures relate to death or serious injury in the course of either police pursuits or responses to emergency calls.

  Police vehicle accidents (England and Wales)

  Year

  Total fatal injuries

  Total serious injuries

  1989

  39

  333

  1990

  24

  317

  1991

  32

  271

  1992

  30

  300

  1993

  34

  300

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 125, if he will list the organisations that have responded to the consultative proposals concerning probation officer recruitment and training. [29486]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office has received comments from a wide variety of sources including individuals or groups of individuals in organisations and professional bodies. Some of these have written in a personal capacity and it would not be appropriate to disclose details. Responses have been received from the following organisations, probation services and universities.

  Organisations

  Central Probation Council

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Probation Managers Association

  National Association of Probation Officers

  Association of Black Probation Officers

  National Association of Asian Probation Staff

  Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW)

  Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee

  Standing Conference of Tutors of Probation Qualifying Courses

  Association of University Teachers

  The Magistrate's Association

  Association of County Councils

  British Society of Criminology

  The Association of Family Court Welfare Officers

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Portman and Tavistock NHS Trust

  Voluntary Sector Consultative Group

  Probation services

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  403

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Inner London

  North East London

  South East London

  South West London

  Manchester

  Merseyside

  Norfolk

  Northampton

  Northumbria

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  East Sussex

  West Sussex

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Wiltshire

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  North Wales

  Dyfed

  Powys

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Universities

  Bangor University College of North Wales

  Bath University

  Birmingham University

  Bristol University

  Croydon College

  Durham University

  East Anglia University

  Exeter University

  Huddersfield University

  404

  Hull University

  Keele University

  Leicester—De Montfort University

  Liverpool University

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Manchester University

  Mid Kent College of Higher Education

  Middlesex University

  Northumbria University at Newcastle

  Nottingham Trent University

  Nottingham University

  Oxford University

  Sheffield University

  Sheffield Hallam University

  Southampton University

  Sussex University

  Swansea University College

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses were received to the consultation document on the recruitment and training of probation officers; and how many of these supported the Government's proposals as set out in the consultation paper. [28113]

  Mr. Baker
  A total of 493 responses had been received by the end of the consultation period on 26 May 1995, of which 11 supported those proposals in full. My right hon. and learned Friend will be carefully considering all responses received and will announce his conclusions in due course.

  Police Charging
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 694, if he will make a statement on what is (a) the basis of and (b) justification for the general gravity and specific gravity system for police officers' use when determining whether or not to charge a suspect with an offence and which offence to charge. [29660]

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions on charging are matters for chief officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. Where systems containing gravity factors are in use, I understand that they are intended to ensure a more consistent and robust approach to decision making by bringing to the attention of officers all the relevant facts of a case.

  Demonstrations (Live Animals Exports)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to police budgets of the protection provided to those involved in the export of live animals in the last year. [29642]

  Mr. Maclean
  In the last 12 months seven police authorities have incurred additional expenditure as a result of policing demonstrations against live animal exports. I understand from them that the estimated additional costs to date have been £6,848,206.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the overall effect on the income of smaller charities of the introduction of the national lottery. [29653]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is too early to assess the overall effect that the national lottery is having in this area. My right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken to monitor changes in charitable income following the establishment of the national lottery. He is preparing proposals for giving effect to this undertaking.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's current policy in respect of the resolution adopted on 1 June 1993 by the European Council under the headings "Resolution on certain common guide-lines as regards the admission of particularly vulnerable groups of persons from the former Yugoslavia". [29652]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government have agreed to receive 1,000 particularly vulnerable individuals and their close dependants from the former Yugoslavia. As at 20 June, 866 principals and 1,177 dependants had arrived. None of these people will be required to return to the former Yugoslavia until it is safe to do so.

  In addition, the Government are maintaining their previously announced policy of not requiring nationals of the former Yugoslavia to return to areas of active conflict.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28518]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 20–21 June. [30864]

  Mr. Howard
  I, together with the Minister of State, Scottish Office, Lord Fraser, represented the United Kingdom at the Council which was held in Luxembourg.

  Before the Council began, the Ministers of the member states met their counterparts from the central and eastern European states and from the Baltic states to continue the structured dialogue with them on interior and justice affairs. The troika held a meeting after the Council to brief the USA, Canada, Malta and Cyprus on the Council's discussions.
  406
  The Council agreed as "A" points, among other things, a statistical report on crimes and offences linked to racism and xenophobia, a report on terrorism, a report on aspects of customs co-operation, a recommendation on means of combating illegal immigration and illegal employment and a resolution on the protection of witnesses in the fight against international organised crime.

  The Council had a full discussion on the points outstanding on three important conventions, which are close to completion. These are the conventions on Europol, on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities and on the Customs information system. The Council was able to resolve most of these points and to make progress in defining the remaining issues which relate mainly to resolving disputes on the interpretation of the conventions. These will be discussed by the European Council at Cannes.

  The Council considered progress reports on work on the draft convention on controls on persons crossing external frontiers and on the draft convention on extradition. It also considered a draft convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters, and agreed that work would continue on this under the incoming Spanish presidency.

  It agreed in principle a resolution on burden sharing with regard to the admission and residence of temporarily displaced persons which is not legally binding and is in terms acceptable to the United Kingdom.

  The Council considered the draft Council regulation on third countries whose nationals must have a visa when crossing the external borders of the member states. It failed to reach final agreement due to a difference of opinion on the inclusion in the list of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro.

  I raised with my colleagues the question of football hooliganism. The Council agreed with my proposal that work should be done to increase the effectiveness of the arrangements between member states for preventing and dealing with disorder arising at football matches.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Flatworms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources are being applied to research into the effects of New Zealand flatworms; if he will list the studies being undertaken; what assessment he has made of(a) the control of the flatworm in 1995 to date and (b) whether the problem is increasing; and if he will make a statement. [29170]

  Mr. Ancram
  New Zealand flatworms were first observed in two gardens in Belfast in 1963. They have spread to other parts of Northern Ireland and have now been found in approximately 800 locations. The Department of Agriculture is continuing to carry out research into the effects and control of the flatworm. It is estimated that costs of £366,000 have been incurred on this work since 1988 and £48,000 will be spent on it in 1995–96. Research to date has not identified an effective control measure other than trapping and removal of the flatworms.

  Education Service (Building Programme)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated for the building programme for the education service for the financial year; how much of this is additional funding; how much of this is directly related to construction work, how many projects are involved; how many projects have been put out to tender; and how many projects have commenced construction work. [28991]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of £48.05 million has been allocated in the 1995–96 financial year for major capital works in the education service, and all new building work under the education reform programme. No additional resources were made available in the 1994 public expenditure round. This total is directly related to construction work and 211 capital projects are involved. Construction work has commenced on 111 projects and 33 projects are out to tender.

  Sulphur Quotas
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding additional sulphur quotas for Northern Ireland's electricity generators; and when he expects to make a decision. [28980]

  Mr. Moss
  On the basis of representations from public representatives, Northern Ireland Electricity and the Northern Ireland generators, consideration is being given to the possible transfer of surplus allocations of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from power stations in Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

  It is hoped that a decision on this can be made in the near future and, as already undertaken, I will advise the hon. Member of the outcome of this examination as soon as possible.

  Schools (Funding)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reasons for the removal of direct links between the Department of Education in Northern Ireland and voluntary grammar schools. [28973]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have proposed that the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools would in future be undertaken by the education and library boards, which are responsible for funding the vast majority of schools in Northern Ireland, both controlled and voluntary.

  Many representations on these proposals have been received by my Department as part of the consultation process, which officially ended on 9 June. I will now wish to consider these representations before making final decisions.

  Washington Investment Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was expended out of public funds sent to delegates to the Washington investment conference. [28981]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Financial assistance was provided by the Industrial Development Board only to those 408
  business representatives who qualified under existing marketing programmes. Companies qualifying under this support through the matchmaker programme totalled 34 and assistance of up to £500 per attendee is available. So far, no financial support has been drawn down. Assistance of up to £500 per attendee was also provided to the voluntary sector. To date, £18,500 has been expended.

  The Secretary of State and two Northern Ireland Office Ministers attended the conference, along with a number of senior officials and chairmen of Government-funded agencies. While in the United States, a number of the attendees at the conference undertook other official arrangements. Costs of attending the conference are being collated and apportioned to reflect this. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with these details.

  Accidents (Old Milltown Road)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accidents there have been this year along the Old Milltown road, Shaw's Bridge, Castlereagh; how many of these road accidents have involved pedestrians; what proposals there are for a footway along this road; what proposals there are to make the Old Milltown road a one-way road; what proposals there are for calming measures at the Old Milltown road; and if he will make a statement about road safety at this location. [28978]

  Mr. Moss
  On the road in question, there has been one recorded injury accident this year—no pedestrians were involved. There are no proposals to provide a footway, a one-way system or traffic calming measures at Old Milltown road. The accident history at this location compares favourably with that at similar locations throughout the Belfast area.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the administrative costs incurred by(a) NHS purchasers and (b) NHS providers in each region in each year since 1990–91. [29094]

  Mr. Moss
  The purchaser-provider split was not recognised in the accounts of health and personal social services organisations in Northern Ireland until 1992–93. The information requested is not available in the precise form requested. The tables give expenditure on administration, training and miscellaneous items.

  Table 1

  Total administration and other expenditure 1990–91 and 1991–92

  £

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  11,220,689

  13,654,582

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  9,351,945

  10,898,914

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  28,128,256

  35,328,069

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  9,611,322

  11,468,036

  Total

  58,312,212

  71,349,601

  409

  Table 2

  Total administration and other expenditure 1992–93

  Northern board area £

  Southern board area £

  Eastern board area £

  Western board area £

  Total £

  Purchaser

  3,904,301

  5,381,665

  7,294,838

  3,063,922

  19,644,726

  Provider

  14,448,283

  9,618,441

  38,061,193

  15,713,177

  77,841,094

  Total

  18,352,584

  15,000,106

  45,356,031

  18,777,099

  97,485,820

  Table 3

  Total administration and other expenditure 1993–94

  Northern board area £

  Souther board area £

  Eastern board area £

  Western board area £

  Total £

  Purchaser

  3,622,968

  3,576,395

  5,423,077

  2,345,573

  14,968,013

  Provider

  16,736,405

  11,419,068

  41,679,102

  16,205,361

  86,039,936

  Total

  20,359,373

  14,995,463

  47,102,179

  18,550,934

  101,007,949

  Note:

  In 1992–93 the form of accounts for health and personal social services organisations changed to reflect the purchaser/provider split and the introduction of capital charges. Comparison of figures before 1992–93 with those since that date should be approached with caution.

  Dr. Yin Yin Teoh
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the case of Dr. Yin Yin Teoh of the Belfast Victoria hospital [30255]

  Mr. Moss
  Dr. Yin Yin Teoh, a pre-registration house officer in the royal group of hospitals HSS trust was responsible for the accidental administration of an injection into the wrong drip line which resulted in the death of a patient, Mr. Samuel Beers. As a result, Dr. Teoh was charged with manslaughter but was found not guilty at her trial on 15 May 1995.

  A thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incident was carried out by the trust and the recommendations flowing from this investigation have been implemented.

  During the period of the investigation and trial, Dr. Teoh was transferred to non-clinical duties. She has since been successful in obtaining an appointment as a senior house officer and has resumed clinical duties at the royal group of hospitals trust.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Rate Collection Agency. [30937]

  Mr. Moss
  KPMG Management Consulting was commissioned to undertake an evaluation of the performance of the Rate Collection Agency and a review of the prior options of abolition, privatisation or contractorisation of the agency or the market testing of its functions. They concluded that:the RCA is an effective and efficient organisation, and that Agency status has acted as a catalyst to improvement in performance through the greater clarity of objectives and responsibilities which it has engendered;
  the delivery of the RCA functions by the private sector is feasible, and that the most appropriate way of ensuring the best value for money solution is to market test the Agency's functions.

  The Government have decided to accept the KPMG recommendations that the agency's functions should be
  410
  market tested. In the meantime, the status of the agency has been confirmed until the results of the market test are implemented. A revised framework document for the agency is currently being prepared.

  Copies of the KPMG report are being placed in the Library.

  Small and Medium-sized Business
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's definition of a small business and a medium-sized business. [29578]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer, 21 June 1995]: There is no generally accepted, single definition of what is a small and what is a medium-sized business. Where it is necessary to distinguish between small and medium-sized businesses, for example in the presentation of statistical data or in the context of a specific scheme of assistance, the definition used will always be made clear.

WALES

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the criteria for being appointed chairman of a training and enterprise council; when the criteria were last revised; and if he will list chairmen of the Welsh training and enterprise councils, and the business activities in which they are engaged corresponding to the criteria for selection. [28248]

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman of each training and enterprise council is chosen by the TEC's board of directors. To be eligible the person concerned must hold the office of chairman or chief executive of a company, or be a top level operational manager at a local level of a company, or be a senior partner of a professional partnerships within the private sector, where the company or partnership concerned is of at least three year's standing and has either an annual turnover exceeding £5 million or 25 or more full-time employees. Any TEC director who ceases to be eligible while in office is expected to relinquish that position within three months
  411
  after ceasing to be eligible, unless the TEC and I agree that he or she may continue in office.

  These requirements are set out in the TEC operating agreement and were last reviewed in 1992.

  The current chairman of TECs in Wales are listed. All of these except one satisfy the eligibility criteria for TEC chairmanship as either chairman or managing director of a private sector company employing more than 25 staff. The exception is Mr. Paul Rich who was eligible as the managing director of a private company employing more than 25 staff at the time of his appointment as TEC chairman. Mr. Rich has since ceased to hold this office but I have agreed to his continued chairmanship of the TEC up to 31 March 1996, unless the TEC identifies a suitable successor before then.

  Name

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  Mr. John Phillips CBE

  West Wales TEC

  Mr. Carl Hadley OBE

  North West Wales TEC

  Mr. Trefor Jones OBE DL

  North East Wales TEC

  Mr. John Troth OBE

  Powys TEC

  Mr. David Baird-Murray

  Gwent TEC

  Mr. Roger Jones

  South Glamorgan TEC

  Mr. Paul Rich

  Conservation Welsh Conference
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of hosting the Conservative Welsh conference at the Eisteddfod international centre in Llangollen on 9 and 10 June. [28810]

  Mr. Redwood
  Security and policing arrangements for the conference were provided by the North Wales police force. No other cost to public funds was incurred.

  Medical Treatment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans),Official Report, column 490, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in numbers of people needing medical treatment in Wales since 1979. [29157]

  Mr. Richards
  A large number of factors will have contributed to the increase, including a greater use of screening procedures, medical, technical and

  (a) Residential care and nursing placements in registered independent homes for the elderly 1993–941

  £ thousand

  Total expenditure

  Total income

  Of which: Government grants2

  Sales

  Fees and charges

  Other income

  Joint arrangements

  Clwyd

  3,156

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  Dyfed

  2,785

  1,248

  0

  0

  1,248

  0

  0

  Gwent

  2,882

  1,203

  0

  0

  1,203

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,596

  1,317

  0

  0

  1,317

  0

  0

  Powys

  707

  121

  0

  0

  121

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  1,599

  94

  0

  0

  94

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1,958

  5

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Total Wales

  15,683

  4,015

  0

  0

  4,015

  0

  0

  1 Provisional. Includes placements in independent sector homes which are not required to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984 because they are managed or provided by an exempt body.

  2 Includes specific and supplementary government grants inside and outside Aggregate External Finance.

  412
  pharmaceutical advances, an overall increase in morbidity due mainly to the growing number of elderly people, and rising public and patient expectations of what NHS treatment can achieve.

  Clinical Services
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a list of all contracts for non-clinical services worth £100,000 or more that have been awarded by national health service trusts under the compulsory competitive tendering process.

  Mr. Richards
  Only three NHS services are subject to compulsory competitive tendering—catering, laundry and domestic services. All the contracts awarded by NHS trusts for these services are in excess of £100,000.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what were the administrative costs incurred by(a) NHS purchasers and (b) NHS providers in each region in each year since 1990–91. [29096]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 19 June 1995,Official Report, column 70.

  Placement of Old People
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure in 1993–94 by each local authority from placements of old people in(a) registered and (b) unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes, inside and outside the local authority area and from placements in local authority homes for older people; and if he will break down by income from (1) Government grants, inside aggregate external finance and outside aggregate external finance, (2) sales, (3) fees and charges, (4) other income and (5) joint arrangements. [28993]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following tables. In 1993–94 local authorities incurred no expenditure on, and received no income from, placements in unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes. The expenditure not covered by direct income is supported from sources not hypothecated to specific sources, primarily revenue support grant, non-domestic rates and council tax income.
  413

  (b) Local authority homes for the elderly 1993–941

  £ thousand

  Total expenditure

  Total income

  Of which: Government grants2

  Sales

  Fees and charges

  Other income

  Joint arrangement

  Clwyd

  7,028

  2,252

  0

  107

  2,036

  109

  0

  Dyfed

  10,619

  4,537

  0

  21

  3,812

  704

  0

  Gwent

  9,739

  3,130

  54

  19

  2,548

  474

  35

  Gwynedd

  7,658

  2,621

  0

  0

  2,559

  62

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,865

  3,829

  35

  43

  3,751

  0

  0

  Powys

  4,665

  1,502

  0

  10

  1,475

  17

  0

  South Glamorgan

  6,203

  1,876

  0

  22

  1,637

  209

  8

  West Glamorgan

  8,435

  2,371

  17

  33

  2,201

  120

  0

  Total Wales

  66,212

  22,118

  106

  255

  20,019

  1,695

  43

  1 Provisional. Includes income from placements of the elderly mentally infirm, the physically disabled and blind and deaf people. Excludes income from sheltered accommodation.

  2 Includes specific and supplementary government grants inside and outside Aggregate External Finance.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what was the number of employees in(a) manufacturing and (b) service industries in (i) Wales and (ii) the travel-to-work areas in Blaenau Gwent in each year since 1987. [29149]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The data requested are available for each year from 1987 for Wales and for 1987, 1989 and 1991 for Blaenau Gwent travel-to-work area. All these data can be obtained from the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what support his Department is giving to local authorities in Wales to assist them to develop their systems for monitoring volatile organic compounds. [29488]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under its strategy to curb emissions of volatile organic compounds, the Government are taking a range of measures including controls on industrial sources, tighter standards for vehicles, and increased monitoring. As part of this we are encouraging the integration of local authority monitoring into the UK network and aiming to provide support to councils on quality controls aspects. In Wales, the Welsh Office has also co-operated with councils on the establishment of the new air quality forum to help monitor and assess, on a consistent basis, compounds and other air pollutants.

  NHS Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the extra money for alleviating the dental crisis in Gwynedd, announced by him earlier this year to the Welsh Grand Committee, has so far been(a) spent and (b) committed; and if he will publish an analysis of such expenditure. [29924]

  Mr. Richards
  None of the extra £2.5 million has yet been allocated or spent.

  All Welsh health authorities, as well as those in Gwynedd, were invited to bring forward proposals to improve dental services in their areas. Those proposals have been considered and discussed in detail at meetings with Welsh Office officials.
  414
  An announcement will be made shortly on how the money will be made available.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been employed by the NHS in Wales in each of the last five years. [29634]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the following table:

  Whole-time equivalent number of directly employed NHS staff1

  Date

  Number

  September 1990

  53,049

  September 1991

  53,475

  September 1992

  54,537

  September 1993

  54,932

  September 1994

  54,136

  1 Excluding pre-registration learner nurses. General medical and dental practitioners (some of whom are employed partly as clinical assistants or hospital practitioners by the NHS) and their staff are also excluded.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many managers and similar grades were employed in the NHS in(a) 1992 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29635]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the following table:

  Whole-time equivalent number of NHS managers1

  Date

  Number

  September 1992

  893

  March 1995

  1,338

  1 Staff paid on senior managers and managers payscales. Includes staff reclassified as managers following the extension in 1989 of managers terms and conditions of service.

  Income
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current average gross weekly income of adult(a) male and (b) female full-time Welsh workers. [29618]
  415
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the "New Earnings Survey", average gross weekly earnings of full-time males in Wales was £320.9 in April 1994. The corresponding figure for females was £239.0.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of landfill sites in which contaminated soil is deposited and is proposed to be deposited in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29631]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many people were unemployed in Wales(a) in May 1979 and (b) at the last date for which figures are available. [29629]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The seasonally adjusted number of persons on the claimant unemployment count in Wales was 68,700 in May 1979 and 106,800 in May 1995.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence what measures need to be put in hand to monitor and deal with incidents of low flying by military aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [28481]

  Mr. Redwood
  If there are complaints about possible violation of the low flying regulations they should be referred to the MOD for investigation. Compensation is payable where military activity leads to an identifiable and agreed loss.

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) what is the average cost of providing one doctor hour in Powys hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [29053]

  (2) what is the average cost of providing one doctor hour in Welsh hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [29056]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Community Hospitals, Powys
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total annual cost of maintaining extended community hospitals in Powys; and if he will make a statement. [29055]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners in Wales work in independent fundholding practices; what proportion of general practitioners in Wales this represents; what is the annual cost of funding these general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [29050]
  416
  Mr. Richards
  There are 649 general practitioners, about 35.5 per cent. of all GPs, working in 146 GP fundholding practices in Wales. The level of expenditure from fundholder management allowances between 1990–91 to 1993–94 was as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  111,630

  1991–92

  519,556

  1991–93

  1,622,538

  1993–94

  2,904,934

  Expenditure figures for 1994–95 are not yet available but provisional accounts suggest that the total sum amounted to some £3.8 million.

  NHS Hospital Staff
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) administrators and (d) other non-medical staff are employed by Welsh hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [29052]

  (2) what is the number of (a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) administrators and (d) other non-medical staff employed in extended community hospitals in Powys; and if he will make a statement. [29054]

  Mr. Richards
  Information is not available in the precise from requested. Details are collected only on a NHS trust, directly managed unit or health authority basis, and for non-medical staff the information does not differentiate between hospital and other staff, such as community based staff. The available information is given in the following table:

  Whole-time equivalent staff Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  Wales1

  Doctors2

  20

  2,723

  Nursing and midwifery staff3

  946

  24,702

  Administrators4

  212

  7,540

  Other non-medical staff5

  471

  13,610

  Notes:

  1 Excluding staff directly employed by ambulance trust (and ambulance staff employed by other Trusts/authorities), health purchasers (except one for which separate figures disaggregated from its constituent directly managed units are not available), family health service authorities and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  2 Hospital medical staff, excluding hospital practitioners and clinical assistants. At 30 September 1994.

  3 Excluding pre-registration nurse learners. At 31 March 1995.

  4 Includes managers and all other administrative and clerical staff. At 31 March 1995.

  5 Professional and technical, works, maintenance and ancillay staff. At 31 March 1995.

  Hip Replacement Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of a hip replacement operation undertaken in Powys; and if he will make a statement. [29057]

  Mr. Richards
  Hip replacement operations are not undertaken within Powys. The service for residents of Powys is purchased from several hospitals in England and Wales.
  417
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of a hip replacement operation in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29062]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on treatment costs in contracts is not held centrally. Tariffs for treatment outside of contracts are published. Of the published tariffs specifically for hip replacements procedures, the average is £3,466.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of administering the present prescription and exemption charges system in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29058]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  Item

  Cost (£ million)

  Purchase of prescription forms for supply to doctors and dentists1

  0.08

  Pricing of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and doctors2

  3.2

  1 Expenditure by family health service authorities, 1994. Other FHSA administration costs associated with the NHS prescription system and the charge exemption and remission arrangements are not separately identified.

  2 Expenditure by Prescription Pricing Services, April 1994—March 1995.

  The following are excluded from the above:

  (1) fees paid to doctors, dentists and pharmacists for professional services and expenditure on the drugs bill;

  (2) costs of operating the NHS low income scheme in Wales, which are not separately identified. The scheme provides remission of prescription charges and help with other NHS costs to eligible claimants and their dependents.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express health service expenditure in Wales as a proportion of Welsh gross domestic product for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29059]

  Mr. Richards
  The available information for Wales is given in the following table. Information for 1994–95 is not yet available.

  £ million at current prices

  1990–91

  1993–94

  (a) Net National Health Service expenditure

  1,491

  1,988

  (b) Gross domestic product1

  20,033

  22,761

  (a) As a percentage of (b)

  7.4

  8.7

  1 Gross Domestic Product is available for calendar years only (1990 and 1993).

  Salaried GPs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners in Wales are salaried; what proportion of general practitioners. in Wales this represents; what is the annual cost of employing these salaried general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [29060]
  418
  Mr. Richards
  There are no general medical practitioners in Wales whose salaries are paid directly by family health service authorities.

  There were nine, out of 1,710, unrestricted principal GPs in Wales at 1 October 1994 who were "salaried partners": that is, their salary was paid by the partnership for whom they worked. The salaries of all assistant and trainee GPs—138 at 1 October 1994—are paid by the partnership for whom they work. Information on the cost of employing these staff is not available centrally.

  NHS Salaries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what proportion of NHS expenditure in Wales goes on salaries; what proportion of the salaries bill is accounted for by non-medical staff; and if he will make a statement. [29061]

  Mr. Richards
  The following is the information:

  NHS Expenditure (Wales)

  £000

  Percentage

  NHS revenue expenditure in 1993–94 was:

  1,443,652

  —

  The amount spent on salaries was:

  951,937

  66

  The proportion of salaries bill accounted for by non-medical staff was:

  262,894

  28

  Source:

  Annual Accounts/Financial returns of DHAs, SHAs, FHSAs, NHS Trusts and Welsh Office records.

  Notes:

  1. 1993–94 data is provisional and the latest available.

  2. Expenditure on non-medical staff includes the salaries and wages of general and senior managers, administrators and clerks, ancillary, maintenance, ambulance and "other non-specified" employees in health authorities, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS trusts. The chairmen's and non-executive members remuneration is also included. The costs of GPs' administrative staff are not included in the "non-medical" calculation as this information is not separately collected.

  3. Non NHS staff (agency etc) are excluded from the non-medical staff proportion at this expenditure is not analysed by staff category.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library all work undertaken by his Department on the subject of a Welsh Assembly since 1974. [30224]

  Mr. Redwood
  I do not have access to any departmental papers relating to that period of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Such papers are subject to the provisions of the Public Record Acts 1958 and 1967. Consequently, those files selected for permanent preservation will normally be available for inspection at the Public Records Office, Kew, from January 2004.

  For the period since 1979 I am advised that no studies or other substantive work has been undertaken.

  West Wales Task Force
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the next meeting of the strategy group of the West Wales task force is to be held. [30249]

  Mr. Richards
  The next meeting of the West Wales task force will be held on Monday 24 July.

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his plans for the strategic development scheme in 1996–97. [30936]

  Mr. Redwood
  A circular inviting local authorities to bid for support under the strategic development scheme is being issued today. I am making two important changes to the scheme following detailed consultations with the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of County Councils: local authorities are being given full responsibility for approving and administering smaller schemes—I am setting aside approximately £13 million in 1996–97 for the purpose. I am introducing a new community strategy initiative specifically designed to tackle the most severe social problems in targeted areas. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when Councillor Handel Morgan of Gwynedd county council can expect to receive a reply to the letter he wrote to the Under-Secretary of State on 6 February, regarding his comments on officials of Gwynedd county council, or to his subsequent reminder on 7 March; and if the length of time taken to reply is in accordance with the provisions of the citizens charter. [28480]

  Mr. Richard
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to this matter. I have written to Cllr Morgan today, and have copied my reply to the hon. Gentleman.

  Financial Management Policy Reviews
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 May Official Report, column 373, if he will list any previous examples of financial management policy reviews not being completed; if he will list the civil service guidelines for the carrying out of financial management policy reviews with specific respect to their non-completion; if he will list the principal reasons for non-completion; what proposals he has for strengthening the guidelines for the conduct of such reviews with regard to aborted reviews and the procedure for dealing with them; and if he will make a statement. [27012]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: General guidance on the conduct and coverage of financial management policy reviews is contained in "Non—Departmental Public Bodies. A Guide for Departments", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The guidance states that all reviews should be conducted in two distinct stages. Only after agreement has been reached on the recommendations of the first stage—the prior options review—will a review proceed to a second stage.

  As I announced in response to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1329, the prior options review of the Countryside Council for Wales indicated that there could be scope for elected bodies to play an increased role in the delivery of certain of the council's functions. The second stage of the financial management policy review was therefore overtaken by a review of the council's functions.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Mr. Freemantle of the Scottish Ambulance Service to discuss relations between the service and right hon. and hon. Members; what was the outcome of his discussions; and if he will make a statement. [28534]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent discussions with the chief executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust, but the chief executive has met a number of right hon. and hon. Members this year and welcomes the opportunity for such meetings. If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns regarding relations between the service and right hon. and hon. Members he should detail them and I shall ensure that they are investigated.

  Renfrew District Elderly Forum
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Renfrew district elderly forum to discuss local government reform, water and sewerage services, concessionary travel schemes, standing charges on utilities and other topics of concern; and if he will make a statement. [28570]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet Renfrew district elderly forum. He is, however, aware of its concerns, many of which have recently been raised with him or his Ministers by organisations that represent older people, including elderly forums. I met Strathclyde elderly forum in January to discuss concerns about concessionary travel schemes.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his willingness to support and fund(a) community and (b) staff-led co-operatives to provide care in the community in Scotland. [28531]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Direct financial support from the Scottish Office is generally provided to national voluntary organisations to assist with headquarters running costs and for innovative projects with potential national significance. Locally organised projects may be eligible for funding under the urban programme. Local authority social work departments have been given the responsibility and financial resources to develop and purchase high-quality, cost-effective services from a range of providers in response to local need. This could include staff-led co-operatives.

  Conservation Areas
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations underlie the difference between planning application fees for minor developments within conservation areas for flatted dwellings and dwelling houses; and if he will amend regulations to equalise the fees. [29205]

  Mr. Lang
  Where a planning authority has, under the relevant legislation, removed permitted development rights in a conservation area, owners of dwelling houses
  421
  and flatted dwellings must submit a planning application for minor proposals. A planning fee is payable in the case of a dwelling house, but not in the case of a flatted dwelling. This accords with the position outwith conservation areas where a dwelling house would, subject to certain limitations, enjoy permitted development rights but planning proposals in flatted dwellings require planning permission and, accordingly, payment of a fee.

  The reason for the distinction is that alterations to flats are more likely to affect neighbouring interests and are not therefore granted the permitted development rights available to dwelling houses.

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the mean, median and standard deviation for the length of time between receiving a claim and the payment of a claim for each agricultural grant handled by his Department. [29455]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at

  Identifiable Local Authority Expenditure relating to fully staffed residential homes for older people: 1993–94 (provisional)

  £ thousand

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Expenditure

  Employee costs

  2,720

  5,151

  4,330

  6,155

  9,936

  3,377

  Operating costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Third party payments to private persons or companies

  410

  942

  486

  —

  —

  945

  Third party payments to voluntary bodies

  —

  76

  —

  —

  18

  215

  Other third party payments

  —

  136

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other operating costs

  740

  1,188

  993

  1,268

  2,057

  802

  Total (operating costs)

  1,150

  2,342

  1,479

  1,268

  2,075

  1,962

  Transfer payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grants to private persons or companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grants to voluntary bodies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other transfer payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (transfer payments)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total gross expenditure

  3,870

  7,493

  5,809

  7,423

  12,011

  5,339

  £ thousand

  Lothian

  Strahtclyde

  Tayside

  Orkney

  Shetland

  W Isles

  Scotland

  Expenditure

  Employee costs

  11,711

  34,343

  8,283

  902

  1,258

  1,617

  89,783

  Operating costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Third party payments to private persons or companies

  1

  7,924

  1,355

  —

  312

  —

  12,375

  Third party payments to voluntary bodies

  2,370

  205

  270

  —

  —

  —

  3,154

  Other third party payments

  —

  7,148

  —

  —

  5

  —

  7,289

  Other operating costs

  2,655

  10,029

  2,330

  191

  0

  603

  22,856

  Total (operating costs)

  5,026

  25,306

  3,955

  191

  317

  603

  45,674

  Transfer payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grants to private persons or companies

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  Grants to voluntary bodies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other transfer payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (transfer payments)

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total gross expenditure

  16,763

  59,649

  12,338

  1,093

  1,575

  2,220

  135,483

  Source:

  Local financial returns made by local authorities to Scottish Office.
  422
  disproportionate cost. Targets for the payment of claims for grants and subsidies are set out in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department's charter standard statement entitled "Serving Scottish Farmers". A second edition was published on 21 June. In 1993–94, the Department attained a performance rate of 90 per cent. or above for the majority of the targets set out in the first edition of "Serving Scottish Farmers". I will report on performance for 1994–95 later this year.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure in 1993–94 by each local authority from placements of old people in(a) registered and (b) unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes, inside and outside the local authority area and from placements in local authority homes for older people; and if he will break down by income from (1) Government grants, inside aggregate external finance and outside aggregate external finance, (2) sales, (3) fees and charges, (4) other income and (5) joint arrangements. [28992]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Sand-eel Fishery
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vessels are employed in monitoring the sand-eel fishery around Shetland and in the west of Scotland waters. [29344]

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office marine laboratory would normally deploy one of its research vessels to help with any necessary stock assessment. In addition, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency deploys a number of vessels on surveillance and enforcement duties. These include four offshore fishery patrol vessels augmented by a similar Royal Navy vessel and two inshore launches. Their tasking covers the sand-eel fisheries but is not exclusively so.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to monitor the age, composition and size of fish in each catch of sand-eels around Shetland. [29343]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The Scottish Office marine laboratory in Aberdeen is analysing daily samples from the Shetland fishery on the basis of age and length composition.

  Wild Mink
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the damage done to marine birdlife by wild mink. [29624]

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on the impact of mink on Scottish wildlife. The species is an active predator and established itself in the wild after escaping from mink farms as long ago as 1929. Research results indicate that the mink has generally not had a serious effect on our wildlife although there remains concern about its possible effect on some colonies of ground-nesting seabirds.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to relevant authorities on the control of wild mink populations; what controls are already in place; and where they are being carried out. [29621]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Guidance on the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was issued in 1991 in a circular to local authorities and other relevant organisations. Under that Act it is an offence to release mink or to allow mink to escape into the wild. The Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975 also apply strict requirements to mink farming to prevent escapes from adding to the wild mink population. In addition there are voluntary efforts to trap mink by groups such as the Argyll bird club and the Harris and Lewis mink control group.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated population of wild mink in(a) Scotland (b) Argyll and Bute for the years (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [29623]

  Sir Hector Monro
  It was estimated recently that there are some 50,000 wild mink in Scotland. Further details requested are not available.

  Fatal Accident Inquiry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to state whether there is to be a fatal accident inquiry into the death of a constituent of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow in a traffic accident in East shaw street, Greenock on 21 April; and if he will make a statement. [29306]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The death to which the hon. Member refers has been reported to the procurator fiscal at Greenock, and he is inquiring into the circumstances. Members of the deceased's family were interviewed on 7 and 8 June. The procurator fiscal anticipates that his inquiries will be completed by the end of June.

  Boundary Commission Review
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures there are for changing the name of a parliamentary constituency between Parliamentary Boundary Commission reviews; and if he will make a statement. [30292]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Recommendations as to the names of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland are a matter for the Boundary Commission for Scotland alone. The commission is empowered to undertake interim reviews of constituencies, between general reviews, as it sees fit.

  Police
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of police officers per 1,000 population in Grampian region and in Gordon district. [30012]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The regular police establishment per 1,000 population in Grampian region is 2.21 as at 31 March 1995. The information for Gordon district is not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average number of police officers per 1,000 population in Scotland. [30011]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The authorised regular police establishment per 1,000 population in Scotland is 2.77 as at 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the location and number of rural police stations in Scotland that have been closed over the past 10 years. [30013]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. Closure of police stations is a matter for the chief constable and police authority of the force area concerned.

  Farmwatch
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the number of farmwatch schemes operating in Scotland; and what provision his Department has undertaken to encourage farmers to join this scheme. [30014]
  425
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information by region is not held centrally, but the number of schemes by police force area is as follows:

  Central Scotland police

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway constabulary

  14

  Fife constabulary

  —

  Grampian police

  34

  Lothian and Borders police

  8

  Northern constabulary

  1

  Strathclyde police

  —

  Tayside police

  58

  Farmwatch schemes, in common with a wide range of other watch schemes, continue to increase in number and operate in close co-operation with individual police forces. The demand for, and development of, such schemes are essentially driven by farming communities in the light of their perception of local circumstances.

  Ayr County Hospital
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how long the old Ayr county hospital building has been empty; what action has been taken to protect its fabric; what action has been taken to find a new use for it; when he expects it to be re-occupied; and if he will make a statement. [30023]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Ayr county hospital was closed on 31 October 1991 and has been empty since that date. The fabric of the building has been maintained throughout this time in a wind and watertight condition. The hospital has been deemed surplus to requirements by Ayrshire and Arran health board and an offer has been accepted from a property developer who should take possession of the property in December 1995.

  "Granny Flats"
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the effect of the English High Court decision by Mr. Justice Ognall on the separate valuation for council tax purposes of annexs set aside for elderly relatives in respect of Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [30024]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In Scotland, this matter is regulated by section 72 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which defines a chargeable dwelling for council tax purposes. Although each case is assessed on its merits, it is our understanding that assessors generally enter such dwellings separately in the valuation list. Any dispute or question over an assessor's interpretation of section 72 is a matter for the relevant valuation appeal committee and ultimately for the courts.

  Electoral Ward Names
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures there are for changing an electoral ward name in a new unitary authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  There are no statutory procedures for changing the name of an electoral ward. The usual practice is that names of electoral wards are included by local authorities in any proposals made in the course of a review 426
  of local government electoral arrangements by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Proposals for changes to electoral areas, including the name of electoral wards are subject to wide public consultation. The first review of electoral arrangements in respect of the new unitary authorities will commence as soon as practicable after 1 April 1996 with the aim of completing the review in time for the next election in 1999.

  Crofters
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the crofter building grants and loans scheme; and if he will make a statement. [30040]

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department has no plans at present to introduce changes to the assistance available through the crofters building grants and loans scheme.

  HIV
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much compensation has been paid to people in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland who contracted HIV from contaminated blood products; how many people have received compensation; and how many were haemophiliacs. [28323]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Payments totalling £4,050,000 have been made to 75 patients in Scotland who were infected with HIV through NHS treatment with blood, blood products or tissue transfer. Sixty three of these were haemophiliacs. Information available is on an all-Scotland basis and does not separately identify individuals according to area of residence.

  NHS (Private Sector Involvement)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) of 12 June,Official Report, column 367–68, what is the estimated cost of the process of seeking private sector partners to design, build and financeo the new facilities in Edinburgh and Lanarkshire; and what are the non-clinical services referred to. [29583]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The process of seeking private sector partners is not yet complete in the Edinburgh and Lanarkshire trusts, so final costs cannot yet be provided. However, two of the trusts have indicated that they expect the cost of the entire process to be between 0.5 per cent. and 0.75 per cent. of the total capital cost. The non-clinical services referred to include estates services, building maintenance, hotel services, supplies, laundry, theatre sterile supplies, medical records, transport services, security car parking, grounds and gardens, switchboard services and information technology. Not all of the services include every one of these areas.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Scotland in each year from 1990 to 1994; what was the total number of

  427
  maternities in Scotland in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete infra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception; and if he will make a statement. [29528]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The information is as follows:

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994 (Prov)

  Twins:

  2 live

  711

  682

  790

  751

  762

  1 live, 1 stillbirth

  15

  22

  11

  25

  13

  2 stillbirth

  5

  5

  6

  4

  3

  Triplets:

  3 live

  14

  18

  15

  10

  16

  2 live, 1 stillbirth

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1 live, 2 stillbirth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3 stillbirth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Quadruplets:

  4 live

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3 live, 1 stillbirth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total maternities

  65,556

  66,630

  65,307

  62,946

  61,224

  Information on the number of multiple births in Scotland attributed to assisted reproduction is not available. Some information on these matters is published in the three annual reports of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and in earlier reports of the interim licensing authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who were the members of the sub-committee of the members of the board of Ayrshire and Arran health board which oversaw the negotiations between Irvine Healthcare Ltd. and the health board prior to the conclusion of the current contract; [29697]

  (2) when Ayrshire and Arran health board first entered negotiations with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. on the provision of a replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital; [29689]

  (3) when the members of the board of Ayrshire and Arran health board approved the contract with Irvine Healthcare Ltd.; and when the contract with the company was formally concluded; [29680]

  (4) if he will make available the detail of the agreement between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Irvine Healthcare Ltd. as regards the siting of the company's facility within the grounds of Ayrshire central hospital and the financial agreement allowing the lease of the site from the Ayrshire and Arran Community NHS Healthcare trust and the period covered by the contract with the company; [29696]

  (5) what current contracts exist between Ayrshire and Arran health board and private and independent sectors for the provision of care beds to the NHS ounder contract; what are the companies involved in these contracts; what is the value of the individual contracts, and when they will lapse; [29684]
  428
  (6) what investigations Ayrshire and Arran health board has carried out into the patient care record of Irvine Healthcare Ltd.; and what monitoring processes will be put in place to ensure effective standards of patient care; [29686]

  (7) what process was adopted by the Ayrshire and Arran health board to publicise its interest in involving the private sector in the building of the replacement facility at Ravenspark hospital; and what private companies indicated their interest in this contract; [29690]

  (8) how Irvine Healthcare Ltd. first indicated an interest with the Ayrshire and Arran health board as regards its involvement with a replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital. [29692]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: These matters are for Ayrshire and Arran health board. The hon. Member may wish to write to the general manager of the board.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct Ayrshire and Arran health board to make publicly available copies of its contract with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. [29681]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: No.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current guidance exists and what guidance existed between 1993 and the present time to Scottish health boards relating to the tendering arrangements for medical facilities within the NHS. [29683]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: Various guidance exists on appraising projects and the private finance initiative. Guidance will shortly be issued on tendering arrangements for privately financed projects.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps Ayrshire and Arran health board has taken to appoint a new general manager; and whether any decision has been taken on his successor. [29685]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: Ayrshire and Arran health board is actively considering the arrangements for a successor to Mr. J. M. Eckford OBE who retires later this year. Part of these arrangements will be public advertisement of the post. No decisions have been taken on Mr. Eckford's successor.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to begin the consultation on the closure of Ravenspark hospital; and what steps Ayrshire and Arran health board have taken to prepare the arrangements for the consultation process. [29687]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: Consultations on hospital closures are the responsibility of the health board concerned. Ayrshire and Arran health board is aware of the requirements for consultation set out in NHS circular GEN(1975)46.

  The final decision on any hospital closure in Scotland rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance was issued to Ayrshire and Arran health board prior to 24 February 1993 by the national
  429
  health service management executive concerning entering into long-term contracts with the private or independent sectors for the provision of continuing care beds; and whether this guidance is compatible with the board's decision to conclude a contract with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. for the provision of a replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital. [29691]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The NHS management executive advised the board in late 1992 that it should not enter into long-term contracts with the private sector which would constrain its ability to meet changing needs. It gave approval to conclude the contract with Irvine Care Ltd. on 13 July 1994.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations Ayrshire and Arran health board received from the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust as regards the board's negotiations with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. for the provision of a replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital; [29693]

  (2) what representations the Scottish Office or the national health service management executive has received from the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust on the contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Irvine Healthcare Ltd. [29682]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The chief executive of the trust wrote on 9 February 1995 and received a response from the director of trusts in the NHS management executive on 3 March 1995.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the involvement of the National Health Service Management Executive in the conclusion of the contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and Irvine Healthcare Ltd.; and on what specific issues they made representations to the health board about this contract; [29695]

  (2) what discussions the Scottish Office had with Ayrshire and Arran health board relating to its contract with Irvine Healthcare Ltd.; and what was the subject of these discussions. [29675]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The NHS management executive has had a number of discussions with officers of the health board between late 1992 and the present. They concerned the health board's assessment of the needs of its local population for the service to be provided under this contract, the quality of the service and its value for money.

  Conclusion of the contract was a matter for the health board.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the private and independent sectors concerning the provision of continuing care beds to the NHS and their involvement in private finance initiatives. [29674]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: My officials have had a number of discussions with various parties interested in the private finance initiative. Such discussions are of a general nature.
  430
  The commissioning of particular schemes is the responsibility of the health board or NHS trust concerned.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department and the national health service management executive has made of the financial terms of Ayrshire and Arran health board's contract with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. [29676]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The health board submitted an option appraisal covering the project to the NHS management executive. This was considered by the NHS management executive in line with normal procedures.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Office and the National Health Service Management Executive gave final approval to Ayrshire and Arran health board to the contract which it has concluded with Irvine Healthcare Ltd. [29677]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The NHS management executive wrote to the general manager of Ayrshire and Arran health board on 13 July 1994 giving approval for the contract to he concluded.

  Mr. Donhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Irvine Healthcare Ltd. or its parent company Speciality Care PLC are currently involved in negotiations with any Scottish health boards other than Ayrshire and Arran concerning the provision of long-term care beds under contract to the NHS. [29678]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: This information is not held centrally. Negotiations on contracts are a matter for individual health boards.

  Mr. Donhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration underlay the decision to exclude the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust from tendering for the replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital; and if this decision was in line with guidance from the national health service management executive at that time. [29694]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust was not established when tendering took place. The trust was established in April 1993.

  Tendering submissions were made in late 1991.

  Lanarkshire Development Agency
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to the representation on the hoard of Lanarkshire Development Agency to facilitate representation for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth; whom he will consult; and if he will make a statement. [29748]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The boards of local enterprise companies are appointed by the enterprise bodies, not by my right hon. Friend. The members of the board serve as individuals, not as representatives of any particular interest. Where local enterprise company boundaries are due to change on

  431
  1 April 1996, Scottish Enterprise will be taking steps to ensure that the composition of the local enterprise company board is consistent with its new geographical area.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to his Department in each of the past three years of promoting Gaelic 432
  broadcasting; and what is the projected cost for the current financial year. [29750]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: Government support for Gaelic broadcasting over the past three years is given in the table. The projected expenditure in the current financial year is £8,930,000.

  1992–93: £9,500,000

  1993–94: £9,500,000

  1994–95: £8,738,000

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Sexual Offences: Anonymity for Defendants
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to provide that the same protection from publicity be given to defendants accused of sexual offences, unless and until convicted, as the law gives to complainants in such cases.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we have no plans to do so. We believe that the present law, which affords anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases but offers no special protection for defendants, strikes a balance between the principle of open justice and the need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to come forward.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates the complexity of the issue. However, is she aware that it is simply not true that the acquittal of men charged with rape leads to the public vindication of them because of the overwhelming and often prurient publicity which scorches the lives of anyone named in a rape case whether he is innocent or guilty? While I am glad that the Minister mentioned anonymity for women, which is most important because of the unique nature of rape and the media's obsession with it, nevertheless, should not the same consideration be given to men? Otherwise they are being treated very unfairly indeed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in that, first, it is indeed a very complex matter; and, secondly, that I have much sympathy with some of the points made by him. However, I hope that he will agree that it is the balance that has to be struck between open justice and encouraging people to come forward who are complainants. Moreover, the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and others, have found it very difficult to conclude that there should be a separate and distinctive protection for sexual offences as opposed to all other crimes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be an absolute absurdity to accord anonymity to defendants in sexual cases but to withhold it from cases of murder, high treason, cruelty to animals, physical assaults on women not involving sex, physical assaults on children, attempted murder and much more serious offences? Is there absolutely any justification for that form of discrimination in logic?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend, in his inimitable style, has actually put the case for
402
me. It is precisely because of the very points put by my noble and learned friend that the conclusion was reached that a distinction should not be made in this case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we all agree that this is a very complex situation and one for which there is no simple, right answer. However, I am puzzled by what the Minister said about victims coming forward. Will the Minister agree with me that the most important consideration in rape cases is that victims should be able to come forward without excessive suffering or discrimination against themselves? Why does the Minister think that anonymity—which I am not necessarily supporting for the defendants—should discourage victims from coming forward?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords; I am making the opposite point. I am saying that anonymity does in fact encourage them to come forward. But anonymity is afforded under the present system which we are supporting and which we are encouraging others to support. It is afforded to complainants in these cases; it is not afforded to the defendants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was referring to anonymity for the defendants. Why should anonymity for the defendants discourage complainants from coming forward? I ask that question not from any view of my own, but in order to ascertain the Minister's view.
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords; I was not making that argument. In terms of arguing against anonymity for a defendant, I was simply querying why we should make a distinction for sexual cases and not for all the other crimes mentioned by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister look at one simple aspect of the matter; namely, do we approve of the fact that people who are found innocent are not able to show that they are innocent and not shown by the powers of the press to be so? We hold that there is a great difference between being guilty and not guilty.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing clearer than a full acquittal. The system in this country means that, if someone is found innocent, then he is acquitted. That fact is very publicly made known to the press and, indeed, to all others.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister understand—I am sure that she does—and realise that in cases of rape, as has already been pointed out, the press takes a great interest in such matters and, indeed, very often condemns the accused before the court case takes place? Even when the person has been found innocent, people still say, "Well, there is no smoke without fire". Further, are not the accused then in danger, because they have been named, of being the victims of spite in certain circumstances?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not going to defend the behaviour of the press, not only in cases of sexual crimes but also as regards other crimes. Indeed, many people are pilloried by the press to the point where, very often, the issue as to whether they get a fair trial is very

403
much in doubt. Sometimes cases have had to be dismissed simply because of the way in which the press has behaved prior to a case being heard.
I do not believe that that goes against my argument. It is very difficult—and wiser people than I have sat in judgment on the matter—to make a distinction between sexual offences and all other offences. If someone is accused of burglary, murder, violence, or whatever it might be, the same could apply.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I appreciate her responses although I do not agree with them? Is the noble Baroness further aware that if the concept of anonymity for men is so absurd then Parliament was absurd when it passed a Bill in 1976 to give anonymity to men? Therefore, there is very little substance in the charge that it is an absurd proposition, unless one wants to condemn Parliament for being absurd. It was changed only recently, as the Minister knows.
It is not the case that murder is highlighted in the press. Unfortunately, murder is not unique now. Rape is covered by the press and not murder. It was covered by the penny dreadfuls in the days when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was a boy, but not any more. However, as I said, rape is covered by the tabloids very regularly. That is why men who are named in rape cases suffer despite being found not guilty in a court of law. That is why the Government should go back to the old ruling passed previously by Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the history given by the noble Lord is absolutely right. But, again, following anonymity being given to both the complainant and the defendant, the Criminal Law Revision Committee considered the matter most carefully and recommended that anonymity should not be given to the defendant. At that time, the Government accepted that view and, so far, they have not changed their mind about it.

European Passport: Format
3.10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have reached any decision on altering the style of the EC common format passport to incorporate the name and title of the holder on the front cover.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, technical and production difficulties which can be overcome only at considerable expense rule out the provision of a window panel in the front cover of the passport to record the holder's name and title.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply. Does she agree that even if it is impossible to amend the passport because of the difficulty she has indicated, British people might be better disposed towards the European Union if they did not feel that it was removing from them one of their personal or national symbols of identity? Does she not also agree that the notion of subsidiarity could be
404
brought into play in protecting such symbols where that protection cannot conceivably be at odds with proper European co-operation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we freely signed up to a common format and because of that we are bound by both the shape of the new document and what appears in the wording on the front. There is already a difficulty with the wording "European Community". I understand that steps will be taken to introduce the word "Union" for "Community". But having established a common format we are bound by the size and shape and what is contained within the document. Because of that there is no room to create a window on the front of the cover.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the passport is merely a symbol it is a symbol of our nationality and most British people did not understand that a signature had been given to prevent our being able to present a passport? What objection can there be to our having the choice of a British passport or the European one? Will that offend Europe?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important for me to stress that it is a British passport. We have adopted a common format but it remains a British passport and it remains available only to bona fide British citizens.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the whole concept of a supra-European state and a federal Europe is a dead duck and that all this business of tinkering about with the form, shape, colour and content of our passports is a hopeless irrelevance? Most people in the United Kingdom, including Members opposite, will be quite content with the authority, prestige, and honour of holding a British passport.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord and say that I hope a supra-national federal state is a dead duck, and long may that be the case. On the second point, I think perhaps there is some logic in having a common passport across Europe so long as the passport allocated within member states remains a passport for the nationals in that member state. That is the case with the particular passport we are discussing. It is a British passport available only to British subjects.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an even greater Labour British patriot than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, Mr. Ernest Bevin, said that his object was to be able to go from Victoria Station without a passport of any sort to where the hell he pleased? Is that not more likely to be achieved by co-operation than by chauvinism?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much has been done to allow freer movement of British nationals across the European continent but I have to make the caveat that we are also concerned about the security of our borders.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not a principal advantage of the common format that while preserving the identity of the British passport it enables that passport to be read quickly by a machine anywhere in the Union and eventually in most parts of the world? Are not the

405
advantages of that transparently honest once one has queued at a Greek or other frontier post with an old-fashioned passport?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The passports we are discussing are machine-readable. That will help enormously not just as regards the example my noble friend gave but also in helping to speed things up at airports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is the Minister aware that some of us do not think that passports are the same since they were introduced by the words, "We, Ernest Bevin"? More seriously, the important information in a passport is contained inside the back cover. Why should not the back cover simply be reversed so that the information is outside and is available without the complicated opening procedure we have now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a suggestion I have never heard. As always after responding to Questions in the House, I take good ideas back to my right honourable friends. I suspect that the reason given may still be technical and that the back of the passport has a type of cover which makes it difficult to expose the contents of the passport. I shall nevertheless report the information provided by the noble Lord to my right honourable friend.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am not used to this self-regulating Chamber. As the Minister is in the process of receiving positive ideas, will she look at the passport document from the point of view of its already multilingual nature and consider positively whether it is now time to include all official languages within the United Kingdom in the version of the passport now available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I report any ideas wholly without prejudice to the outcome. I find it difficult to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord; nevertheless I shall make sure that my right honourable friend hears about it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if titles cannot be put on the front of passports, what is the position with regard to knights, baronets and dames?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a concession to that end—not on the front of the passport but on the page that contains the basic fundamental data—that titles can be included in a shortened form and that somewhere else in the passport the full title can be printed for observational purposes.
Lord Hanson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is little enough "feel-goodness" about the European Union as it is and that what has been proposed would be a positive concession to those of us who value, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, everything that is British from the Union Jack to the traditional blue passport? We enjoy demonstrating, when abroad, our pride in being British. We should consider this measure
406
and not just pass it over for reasons of machine reading or any other. It is possible for that to be done; it is not difficult. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the matter seriously on behalf of all of us here who seem to have strong feelings on the subject.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the nostalgia for the blue passport; in fact, my own blue passport still has one more year to run. I understand the points being made, but we are party to an international agreement and we signed up to the common format. I believe that the noble Lord makes an impractical suggestion. Nevertheless I shall report his suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that while the information given on the inside back cover may be adequate for a computer reading, it is utterly useless for anyone such as a passport officer who wishes to address the holder with normal courtesy? To know that the holder is, "Mary Brown, female", is quite useless for that purpose. Can the matter not be considered further?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been an agreement not to include prefixes. I note what the noble Lord says, but I understand that we have agreed that prefixes should not be included.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, may I make a comment about this? I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, as on so many other occasions. I have presented my passport to a number of immigration officers—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will realise that we are running out of time and there are two more Questions to go. Will he put a question to the House rather than a statement? As the noble Lord will be aware, that is our procedure.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, it is a pity because the statement was rather good. Can we get back to having a decent passport such as the blue one that I still have? That is very important. We trade in every country in the world. When the immigration officer sees it, he recognises it as being of some value and having some identity. This little red notebook is depressing.
Baroness Blatch; My Lords, there can be no return to the old blue passport.

Small Business: Bank References
3.20 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the promotion and encouragement of small businesses is assisted by the present arrangements for obtaining bank references.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government recognise the vital role which small businesses play in the

407
economy of the country and are firmly committed to supporting them. The style and the content of individual bank references must be a matter for the bankers and their customers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he accept that the present mealy-mouthed and anodyne, to the point of misleading, bank references given nowadays mislead small businesses and lead them into serious debt? Bearing that in mind, will he consider whether the Government would be prepared to review the present system of credit references?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that some bank references can be, as he puts it, mealy-mouthed but, of course, banks have a duty to their customers as well as to the inquirers. Banks are expected to make the meaning as clear as possible within certain confines. I remember an occasion when my father was asked to give a reference for someone who had been found stealing. He said that, although the doctor said that he should not lift heavy articles, he was quite good at lifting light articles. Sometimes a degree of interpretation is required. However, businesses which wish to obtain information about customers can also use credit reference agencies, to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the small businessman finds bank references misleading, he can always obtain references from credit agencies or from other traders? He can deliver an initial first small order at normal commercial risk and then take a view. Does the Minister agree that that is probably of more value than a bank reference for which the bank accepts no liability?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, principally because that was the answer that I just gave to my noble friend.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since 1979 the many hundreds of thousands of small businesses that have been set up with the help of this Government have made a very good impression on our unemployment figures? Does he also agree that lower corporation tax on small businesses is a definite help, not only for small businesses but also for the economy, particularly in view of the easing of PAYE and VAT for small businesses? Does he agree further that, apart from bank references, it is high time that we looked at the rate of mandatory interest on late payers, particularly in relation to small businesses?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of my noble friend's question which went considerably further than bank references. I believe he is trying to say that what has happened to and for small businesses since 1979 has been of great value to the country. It is perfectly true that small businesses have encouraged employers at a time when employment was decreasing in many other spheres.
Perhaps I may return to the original Question. It is a fact that it has not been brought to the Government's attention that the system of obtaining and providing bank
408
references is a major source of contention between banks and small businesses; but they are alert to the problems which exist in that regard.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, is it not the case that one may well receive a perfectly satisfactory bank reference on somebody who is an undischarged bankrupt? I have always thought that that is a fairly illogical situation. Can a bank take into account information from a third party when it gives a reference?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as far as I know, banks can take into account what information they like in order to come to the facts which are included in the reference. I am not aware of the position with regard to undischarged bankrupts. But when a bank gives a reference, it gives a view of that person to the best of its ability without disclosing those matters which are best not disclosed. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, it is for the individual to make inquiries also from other sources.

Millennium Commission
3.25 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Cabinet Ministers have been consulted about projects chosen by the independent Millennium Commission.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be writing to other Cabinet Ministers for their views on the Millennium Commission's short-list of major projects to help inform his and the President of the Board of Trade's input into the decision-making process. Decisions on which projects to support will be taken by the nine members of the Millennium Commission entirely independently of government.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for answering so candidly and confirming a report in the Independent newspaper that the Secretary of State has written to members of the Cabinet asking for their views on the priority to be assigned to various short-listed projects. Will she tell the House how such action squares with the several assurances of total independence of the Millennium Commission from the Government, which were given by the Minister to noble Lords during Committee and Report stages of the National Lottery Bill? The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said:
"The Bill affords the opportunity for the commission to be independent of government".—[Official Report, 8/7/93; col. 1543.]
It seems that that is an opportunity denied.
Would not the Government be well advised to remember that the money provided for the Millennium Commission comes from many millions of people throughout the country having a small flutter in the hope of helping good causes and that it should not be used as a potential political slush fund to extend the patronage of the Conservative Party?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, quite heard what I said.

409
I did not say that he had written. I said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be writing to Cabinet Ministers for their views on the short-list. Therefore, he was not quite accurate about that.
The knowledge and opinions of other Ministers will help my two right honourable friends on the commission when they consider each project on the short-list. All commissioners are welcome to consult other parties. But at the end of the day, it is for the nine members of the commission to decide which projects to support.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, do I understand from what the noble Baroness said that no letter has yet been written by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to Cabinet Ministers on this topic? Will she also assure the House that, if and when Cabinet Ministers are offered an opportunity to comment on the short-listed projects, a similar opportunity will be offered formally to the Opposition and to the relevant constituency Members of Parliament?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, a letter was sent to Cabinet colleagues with regard to consultation on applications to the Millennium Fund and not in relation to the short-list. There will be another letter concerning the short-list, which has not yet been sent.
The Opposition heritage spokesman has confirmed that Mr. Montague has discussed millennium matters with him, which is all that my right honourable friend has said. Mr. Montague is free to consult anybody he likes, as is any other member of the commission. My right honourable friend has not sent any information to Cabinet colleagues which is not already in the public domain.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up that briefly. Is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Montague has certainly not written formally to the entire Shadow Cabinet seeking its views on individual applications and that he has never discussed an individual bid with the Shadow Secretary of State for Heritage?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, Mr. Montague is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Secondly, he is at liberty to send any letter he likes. Let us not forget that this is only the second millennium. The first one occurred in the reign of Ethelred the Unready. The commission is doing its best to do better this time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if there is an independent commission, why on earth cannot it make up its own mind without political guidance on priorities?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is exactly what I have just said, and what it will do.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the House will be greatly reassured that the Members of the Cabinet correspond with one another in writing? That is most reassuring. Can we have
410
an undertaking that the recipients of the communications have the time and the inclination to read the documents that are sent to them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the situation is almost as pleasant as being on the good terms that I am on with the noble Lord who has just spoken.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best projects for the Millennium Fund will be the major new stadium that is planned to be built in Manchester? It will be suitable to host the Commonwealth Games in the year 2002.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not believe that that is a matter for the Millennium Commission.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Gas Bill
3.33 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the chair.]
Clause 1 [General duties under 1986 Act]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert:
("() to protect the interests of consumers of gas conveyed through pipes in respect of the prices charged and the other terms of supply, the continuity of supply, the quality of the gas supply services provided and the exercise of rights under this Part to enter their premises;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8. This amendment is of considerable importance because it relates to the duties under the Bill of the Secretary of State and the director.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the protection of the interests of consumers of gas should be given priority. As the Bill is drafted, the protection of the consumers' interests is given second priority. That does not seem to be in keeping with what ought to be the objectives of the measure. When one reflects that in this country gas is the preferred user fuel for the vast majority of people who use it for domestic purposes, it is of considerable importance that any legislation aimed at changing the arrangements for the supply of that fuel should be seen to be conducted in the interests of the consumer. There can be no other justification for those changes.
When the point was raised in another place, the Minister, Mr. Eggar, contended that the prior duties as stated in the Act were themselves supportive of the interests of the consumer and that therefore there was no need to put the interests of the consumer as a primary obligation. In fact he said that the secondary obligation was to look after the consumers; just because it is secondary does not mean that it is less important.
I find that argument difficult to follow. If the Minister was saying that primary and secondary obligations rank equally, what is the point of making the distinction? I seriously commend to the Committee the contention that the protection of the consumer should rank as the overriding obligation and should figure at the top of the list indicated in Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: In speaking to this group of amendments, I shall concentrate on Amendment No. 1, but I shall also have a few words to say on Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 6 is simply consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
We start from the proposition, with which I am sure the noble Earl will agree, as I hope do all Members of the Committee, that,
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer".
That is a quotation, of course, from the greatest of all economists; it is from the Wealth of Nations. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with that concept.
It looks as though the amendment is merely a drafting measure. Essentially it moves certain words from a few lines into the Bill to the-beginning of the Bill. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it is not a matter of drafting. It is a matter of absolutely fundamental philosophy, both about how all economic activity should be judged—that is why I cited to the Committee the quotation of Adam Smith—and, overwhelmingly, as regards the Bill. The legislation was originally drafted in error by creating a private monopoly. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to rectify that error—that had been accomplished by some earlier amendments to the law—in order to introduce competition and alternative sources of supply. That is 'a subject to which I shall return on a later amendment.
412
I also echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in relation to the Minister's right honourable friend in another place. I felt that the Minister's right honourable friend simply misunderstood the points that were being made, and that in particular he did not understand the distinction between means and ends. That, too, is fundamental to the economic analysis of any industry. Essentially what one does—correctly—is to state the ends, in this case the interests of the consumer, and then state the means to achieve them. But the means are justifiable only in so far as they will achieve the ends that one has in mind. To start this Bill, as indeed the 1986 Act was started, with means, with describing methods and not ends, is again simply a logical error. These amendments seek to rectify those earlier mistakes.
A point that is also of interest, and one which I believe noble Lords on the other side will have found puzzling, is that after all the years of privatisation, as the Economist newspaper has pointed out on more than one occasion, the privatised industries are extraordinarily unpopular. People are puzzled as to why they are. We know why they are. It has nothing to do with meeting consumer demands; it has to do with certain other activities that they have been getting up to and which, for the moment at least, we shall not be debating. However, it is a pity, once industries are in the private sector, that they are portrayed as unpopular when, in the case of this Bill, the new private sector has the potential to do something that is very much in the interests of consumers. Therefore, I hope very much that when I sit down the noble Earl will leap to his feet and say, "Let's waste no more time on this particular amendment because naturally enough the Government will accept it". This amendment is extremely important. It is one that we cannot allow just to drift by.
Perhaps I might briefly say a word on Amendment No. 8. One problem with the overall drafting of the Bill—and I have other amendments which endeavour to clarify it—is that it raises a question as to what the draftsman has in mind. Again, the tradition of classical economics is the individualist tradition in which, after all, noble Lords opposite claim to be firm believers. The tradition is not particularly to do with groups. It is not to do merely with the consumer as we have defined him, but with the individual consumer. That is what matters.
Therefore, Amendment No. 8, which adds the words "to the individual", simply emphasises how important the individual is. In particular, it is to ensure that, should an individual consumer have grounds for complaint—which, not surprisingly in a competitive enterprise economy, will happen—the consumer can say, "You have failed to meet my individual interests". It is not a good enough argument for the industry to say, "Well, we've met the interests of consumers in general. You just happen to be the unlucky one". The reason for including "the individual" is very much to clarify what I assume Ministers had in mind when they asked the draftsman to draft the Bill. In other words, the lines on protecting the interests of consumers are essentially to emphasise, not just consumers in the large, but consumers viewed as individuals. I very much hope that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and myself commend themselves to the Committee; and I hope very

413
much that the Minister will take the responsibility for agreeing with them and also for saying that we really must get this part of the Bill right.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am a simple man. I declared my interest in this Bill at Second Reading. I hope that that will suffice for Committee as well. As a simple man, I like to know from the very beginning, from the earliest possible point of a Bill, what that Bill is actually about. This amendment advances words which to all intents and purposes are already in the Bill, in subsection (2) (a) of the proposed new Section 4 to the 1986 Act. But there would be absolutely no purport to the Bill, no force in it whatsoever, unless we started at the very beginning. The very beginning, after all, is to secure that—in so far as it is economical to meet them—all reasonable demands (we can perhaps argue about the word "reasonable" in a moment) in Great Britain for gas conveyed through pipes are met. That is the whole rationale of the Bill. It was the rationale of the 1986 Act, and I should like to see the stipulation remain exactly where it is in the Bill.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt for a moment as I believe it will help us with our procedures. I do not have any interests to declare, but, so far as I personally am concerned, a declaration of interest once throughout our proceedings will be enough. Otherwise they will become even more tedious. I accept that several noble Lords may have interests. Once they have mentioned them, that is good enough for me at least.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 7, which adds a few words to the Bill. On these Benches we are concerned about the interests of the consumer. But we are also concerned that the interests of people who are potential consumers should also be looked after. We are anxious that the consumer should have sufficient information, in an easily comparable and comprehensible form, from the gas suppliers about prices and services. That should enable consumers to make an informed choice, and should therefore secure the most effective competition possible. We are concerned that we should cover the interests of consumers before they enter into contracts with the gas suppliers as well as after.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I, too, declared an interest at Second Reading, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his indulgence. It seems to me that noble Lords opposite suspect that potential gas suppliers will behave like foot-in-the-door vacuum cleaner salesmen, or other unscrupulous salesmen, of which there seems to be plenty about. Perhaps they ought to give a measure of credit and accord some common sense to potential suppliers. I do not see that that is the case.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that there is very much between us on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he was concerned about the interests of consumers. Of course, we all are. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned his "simple mind". All that the noble Lord opposite is doing, as my noble friend correctly said, is advancing subsection (2) (a) higher in the Bill.
414
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is concerned about the fact that consumers appear to be a secondary consideration, and he wishes to make them a primary consideration. I can understand his reason for wanting to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that people do not like privatised industries. Perhaps they do not. But I remind the noble Lord that they did not like nationalised industries. This is the political point. The fact is, they are utilities; nobody likes them; people thought that they ought to be doing better by them, and so on. I hate to remind noble Lords opposite of one of the advantages of privatised industries, but the fact is that British Telecom's prices have gone down by 35 per cent. and British Gas prices have gone down by 20 per cent. That is of real interest and benefit to the consumer.
The real problem is that it is difficult to put the requirements of the consumer on the same basis as the requirement to supply gas in the first place. The priority for the regulator must be to create a framework in which it is possible for companies to compete, so that they can satisfy the demands for gas. The secondary duties relate to the manner in which that competitive framework operates. It would obviously not make sense if we were to place duties relating to the quality of service on the same level as securing that there are actually companies there to provide the service in the first place.
To give an example, the effect of this amendment could be to require the regulator so to enforce the cutting of prices that it would prejudice the ability of the regulated company to finance its activities. Of course, it would not be of much use to consumers if they were to get a price cut which resulted in the supplier being unable to provide the finance for his business. It would not make economic sense. Therefore, while I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, it is right that first of all the main duty of the regulator should be to ensure that gas is supplied. Having ensured that, then the regulator can say that he or she has the interests of the consumer at heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to Amendment No. 8, which would add to the existing duty in respect of the prices charged, and the other terms of the supply, the words "to the individual". It is an accepted drafting convention in Acts of Parliament that the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. I remember once pointing out that in Civil Service terms the male embraces the female. It occurred to me that we did not have to join the Civil Service to do that. But the principle applies: when the singular is used it covers the plural and vice versa. On some occasions, the interests of consumers will conflict and the director will need to balance those interests as a whole. At other times, individual consumers will have particular difficulties and interpretation as the singular will be apt. I do not feel that it is necessary to include the words which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has in mind, simply because they are covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to Amendment No. 7. I appreciate that he feels that the Bill ought in some ways to provide for the interests of those who would like to become gas consumers as well as those who already are consumers. That is why the Bill includes a duty on the Secretary of State and the director in relation to meeting reasonable demands for gas.

415
The Bill and the licences contain a number of other provisions which are designed to stimulate competition in building extensions to the pipeline network so that new areas can receive a gas supply. The duty to protect the interests of consumers is carefully framed in terms of matters which are specifically of interest to those who in fact consume the gas. It is difficult to see how the director, when he considers prices and other terms of supply, should take into account the interests of people who are not consumers of gas at the moment and might never be consumers. Obviously the principle of allowing freedom and competition is that more people will be brought in. But it is difficult to take account of what such people may be doing or what their interests may be until they become consumers. When they becomes consumers, those interests are taken into account.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I could ask him a question. I fear that I am at risk of being considered a dithering wimp because at the outset of this debate I had the greatest sympathy with the amendment as it was moved, but as I listened to my noble friend's argument I understood precisely what he was trying to say.
I accept that if this competition is to be provided and it is in the interests of consumers—just as privatisation, incidentally, has been in the interests of consumers—why could not that, instead of pre-empting the duty, be put alongside the duty to ensure that competition existed as well as the supply?
I realise that it would mean an amendment at another stage of the Bill. But would my noble friend consider that as a possible solution?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes is too modest. She need not consider herself a wimp simply because she has been persuaded by what I said. It shows that she is very intelligent and entirely correct. I should like to go along with her thoughts in some respects. But the question to ask is this: what is the regulator doing? His first job is to ensure that there is gas available. I do not think one can equate that with saying that at the same time he has to consider the interests of the consumer. If there is no gas, there is no consumer. So the first duty must be that there shall be gas provided correctly and the immediate secondary interest is that the consumer shall be protected. I feel that it would be right to keep the Bill as it is.
Lord Peston: I come back on that point. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would also wish to do so. But, first, I should like to thank the Minister. I wanted him to go on record as confirming that the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. That is very important. I was surprised that he did not go on to say that the present includes the future and the future includes the present and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Haskel would be covered in that way.
Let me give the Minister an example of why potential consumers are fundamental. In a few moments we shall have a debate on topics such as sustainable growth, energy policy and so on. What underlies our interest in those matters is precisely our interest in succeeding
416
generations and potential consumers. So, logically and practically, there are very good grounds why potential consumers need to be taken into account. Those are my comments on the two rather minor amendments, if I may so call them.
It would never occur to me to use the word "wimp" in reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. She has told me off enough times for me to know that that is not her usual outlook. She said that she started by agreeing with me and then agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; now she has what I believe is sometimes called a balanced view. My view is slightly less balanced. Indeed, the noble Earl said exactly what I hoped that he would not say. He made exactly the mistake that 200 years ago Adam Smith would have wished him not to have made; namely, that the product comes ahead of the consumer. That is just wrong. The consumer comes first. Satisfying consumer demand is what matters. The only value in the gas is if the consumer wants it. That is the whole point. The production comes later.
I was taken aback when the noble Earl insisted that he did not even want to think about that. It seems to me to be an actual error. The argument does not apply specifically to gas. It would apply if we were drafting a Bill about anything else. The whole point is: what does the consumer want? Does the system give the consumers what they want? Then we judge the system.
I do not resile at all from my remarks. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will not resile from his. It is an important distinction and I still hope to persuade the noble Earl to accept it. It would represent a very considerable contribution, as it were, to what the consumer wants; namely, the consumer receives what the consumer wants, and that is all that matters.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to prolong this discussion for too long. I ask the noble Lord to read again what the clause says:
"The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned to him by or under this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated … to secure",
first, that gas is conveyed through pipes; and then:
"that licence holders are able to finance the carrying on of the activities".
Those are absolutely basic things. Then subsection (2) says that:
"Subject to [the] above … to protect the interests of consumers".
If the licence holders cannot finance their activities, there is no gas. The whole thing is done, in fact, with the consumer in mind. But there must be new Section 4(1) before one comes to new Section 4(2).
Lord Ezra: I listened with great care to all noble Lords, and particularly to what the noble Earl had to say. I am rather puzzled by his last argument. He implied that, as a result of this piece of legislation, an entirely new product in a new market is being created. He said that if there is no gas, there is no need to support the consumer.
Let me remind him that there are 18 million consumers presently receiving gas. They want to be assured that under the new arrangement they will continue to receive gas and that their interests will be seriously considered. I must say it is unthinkable that

417
the Secretary of State and the regulator could do nothing to safeguard the consumer should they not be able to persuade the suppliers to supply gas or could not find any suppliers with the financial resources to carry out the business. Does the noble Earl indeed mean that the situation could arise in which, if not enough suppliers were found or their financial resources were inadequate, the whole supply of gas to the domestic market would be jeopardised? Of course he does not mean that. If he does not mean that, surely the interests of the consumers—there are 18 million of them—at least to continue to be supplied on the basis on which they are supplied at the moment should be safeguarded.
I hope that the noble Earl will think again. I repeat the words used by his right honourable friend; namely, the fact that just because it is secondary to safeguard the consumer does not mean that it is less important. The logical action is to promote it.
I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, opened up the possibility of a compromise. We on this side of the Committee have suggested that the protection of the consumer should come first. I personally would be content if the noble Earl were prepared to take back that suggestion, consider it and promote the protection of the consumer into the first category. That would be sufficient. Therefore, I ask him whether he is prepared to accept the proposition made by his noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is always deeply enticing when he suggests that we should think about the matter again. We have thought about this a great deal. He said that we did not seem to realise that there are 18 million consumers. Of course there are. That is what the whole of new Section 4(1) relates to. It is about securing that reasonable demands are met; that licence holders can finance their business so as to allow consumers to obtain gas; and about allowing effective competition. What is effective competition if it is not in the consumers' interests? That is its prime purpose.
Immediately following on from that comes the part about looking after the consumer. The second part is dependent upon the existence of the first, but the first also concerns consumers. If I may say so, we are splitting hairs and the consumers are considered in both parts.
Lord Ezra: I am sorry that the noble Earl is not prepared to consider the matter again in the light of what his noble friend suggested. It is wrong to make the interests of consumers -subject to the obligation under the first part. It qualifies that too much. I do not see why it should be difficult for the Government to introduce into the first part the protection of consumers. If the noble Earl is not prepared to think again, even in the light of the moderate proposal made by his noble friend, I feel that the opinion of the Committee should be tested.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to be confrontational. I believe that the Government are right and the noble Lord believes they are wrong. I shall certainly consider what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord
418
Peston. There is no monopoly of wisdom in these things. However, if I consider this, the chances are that I shall come back with the same conclusion.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: My noble and learned friend is not being particularly helpful.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Let us have a Division.
Earl Ferrers: I am trying to be honest with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as I always am. I shall certainly consider what he and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, say. However, I believe we have got it right. I am prepared to consider what was said, but in saying that I do not hold out any great hope that I shall change my mind.
Lord Ezra: In that situation I am glad that the noble Earl is prepared to ignore the pressures from his own Benches. If he is seriously prepared to reconsider the situation and come back with some suggestions, then I would not want to press the amendment to a Division.
Earl Ferrers: I did not actually say that. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asks if I will seriously reconsider and come back with alterations. I did not say that. What I said was that in courtesy to the noble Lords who have spoken I shall certainly consider what they said.
Lord Peston: I am now lost. We have all sorts of codes in relation to gradations of listening to other arguments. This one sounded as though it was really no. Beyond the normal courtesies which we always exchange in your Lordships' Chamber, it sounded to me like no. It would help me in taking a view if the noble Earl would indicate whether he is saying no. If he is, we do not want to waste Report stage going over this again. If he is genuinely—I do not say this with any disrespect—intending to go over the arguments again and is capable of being persuaded, that is one thing. If what he is really saying is, "We are friends. I will look at it but I shall not be persuaded", then we may as well get it over and done with now.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord seems to have got the taste of power in his mouth and I wish it were in his belly. I would not wish to deflect him. I was trying to be as reasonable as possible by saying that I believe we have got it right. If the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, considers that we have got it wrong, I am prepared to consider it but I do not hold out much hope of changing my mind. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to get the matter over and done with, let us get it over with. Perhaps that will meet with the satisfaction of both noble Lords.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps we ought to test the opinion of the Committee. With all the best intentions the noble Earl is not prepared to reconsider the matter seriously and therefore I suggest we decide by voting.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Peston, L.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea,L.

Fitt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Rochester, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.[Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tombs, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tope, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnock, L.

Ailsa, M.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chelmer, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Balfour, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

B anbury of Southam, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bradford, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cross, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

De Freyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Denham, L.

Caithness, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Caldecote, V.

Digby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

420

Downshire, M.

Mottistone, L.

Elibank, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elles,B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Foley, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pym,L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rees, L.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Harlech, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sandys, L.

Howe, E.

Sharpies, B.

Huntly, M.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Slim, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stockton, E.

Lindsay, E.

Strange, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

McConnell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thurlow, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mariesford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Wade of Chorlton.L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Wharton, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is an amendment to do with consumers. It is partly an attempt to try to understand what the Bill is up to. I thought that the easiest way to find out was to ask the noble Earl to explain why the word "reasonable" is included. My amendment essentially takes out the word "reasonable" so that the relevant paragraph would read:
"to secure that, so far as it is economical to meet them, all demands … through pipes are met".
I say to myself, and I said to myself when I first read the Bill, what does "reasonable" add, given that the word "economical" is there? The whole point of industry is that it is meant to be competitive, leading to outcomes which are economical and which can meet demand. What does "reasonable" add? What would be a demand that was economical but was unreasonable?
My judgment is that this is just wrong. From my reading of the Bill, it is a mistake. But I am ever fearful of the lawyers and the parliamentary draftsmen and I therefore expect any minute to be told that it is part of the

421
tradition of English law that the word "reasonable" is always put before the word "demands", or something equally preposterous. Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and wearing my commonsensical hat, I simply ask the Minister to tell me why the word "reasonable" is there. Can he give me an example of a demand that is economical to meet but is not reasonable? That would solve the problem. I think it is impossible, but I would be interested to have an example.
That is what the amendment is about. Essentially it underlines where I failed earlier—the point that the consumer is paramount. The consumer expresses his or her paramountcy by making demands. Those demands should be met if they are economical to meet—end of story. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems quite extraordinary to have put down this amendment because it appears to imply that there will be an obligation to meet unreasonable demands. Although a demand to meet unreasonable demands comes quite commonly from the Front Bench opposite, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may clarify the point. The amendment precisely does not do that because the paragraph retains the word "economical". An economist would argue—I hope that this does not turn the noble Lord against me—if asked what was a reasonable demand, that it was one that was economical to meet. That is why the word "reasonable" is irrelevant. It should not be there. I do not think that there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and myself about unreasonable demands—that is another subject which we may come to in due course. However, if he were to say to me, "What should happen?", I would say that all demands should be met as long as it is economical to meet them. That is the point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is just the point I was seeking to make. A demand might be economical but it might be unreasonable. If Members of the Committee go to the point of taking out the word "reasonable", the implication is that we are prepared to accept the authorisation of unreasonable demands. I do not accept for a moment what the noble Lord says, that an unreasonable demand may not necessarily be economical.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Let us get on with it!
Earl Ferrers: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is deeply anxious that we should get on. I shall do my best to satisfy my noble and learned friend and the rest of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he wants to understand what the Bill is up to and that he is fearful of lawyers. He must not be too fearful. I am terrified of them, but I am terrified of economists, too, so that puts us on an equal footing.
The words,
"satisfy, so far as it is economical to meet them, all reasonable demands",
422
have stood the test of time. That was one of the principal duties of the British Gas Corporation under the 1972 legislation; it was made a primary duty of the director in 1986; and we think that those words should be used now. They are sensible and they have stood the test of time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that to go beyond that and remove the word "reasonable" implies that the director would have a duty to secure that unreasonable demands for gas would be satisfied.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked for an example. I can tell him that there could be cases where practical considerations could mean that extending the gas supply to certain individual premises or groups of premises was not realistic even where it would be theoretically economical to do so. For example, one might have a large consumer who would offer a generous price for a greatly increased supply of gas on condition that the supply should be provided within a few days; or he might request amounts of gas that would be unsafe to convey through the existing pipework even though it might be economical for the gas company to do so; or convey gas which would otherwise have gone to another consumer, thereby diverting that gas from that consumer to the person requesting it.
I do not think that there is anything sinister in this. The wording in the Bill reflects what was in the 1986 Act. I suggest that we ought to keep those words.
Lord Peston: The fact that something is of long standing does not mean that I am convinced that it is other than long-standing rubbish. The fact remains that if someone demands something and it is economical to meet it—namely, that he is willing to pay the costs of meeting it, including a due return to the supplier—that is what one means by a reasonable demand. There can be no other meaning to it. I simply do not understand the noble Earl's example. If someone wants to buy a lot of gas and is willing to pay for that lot of gas, why should that person not be supplied with that gas? If someone wants a lot of gas which might involve risk, essentially what one has to say is, "The risks arising here involve the following costs. Are you willing to meet all those costs?" The answer would, in practice, be no, and then it would be the "economical" test that would be met.
What I am trying to do—and it may be that I am being foolhardy—is to scrutinise the Bill and clean it up. It never occurred to me that there is anything sinister here. It has nothing to do with trying to undermine the Bill. I am trying to remove the tendency, which I have experienced during all my years in your Lordships' House, of the draftsman to put in a lot of extra words and clauses for things which they see but which I cannot. It is my duty as an economist to say, "I know what industry is about and what competition means. It is supposed to be about meeting demand".
Perhaps I may take a typical example. Marks and Spencer meet the demand of people who visit their shops and buy their stuff. It is not said at any time, "Are any of these demands unreasonable?". The stuff is there and you buy it; that is what industry is all about. What is there about this industry so that one adds the word "reasonable?"

423
There is another factor which, curiously, even my noble friends forget. I am surprised to discover that noble Lords on the Government side also forget it—that is to say, we are now dealing with a privatised industry and private enterprise. It is no longer a public utility we are dealing with, but a private business. There will be many such private businesses around. Why should legislation include words that would not be applied to any other private business? What is here that is so special?
What is here—I admit it from my side of the Chamber, but I did not expect to face it coming from the other side—is that we are still not quite at one with what is happening in this industry. It is now going to be a competitive private industry. I know that some of my noble friends cannot face that. What staggers me is that noble Lords on the other side of the House cannot face it either. My view is that they still believe they are dealing with the old public corporation when they should not be.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am not being purely frivolous when I say that if the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has just spoken for the second or third time this afternoon, had taken as his model the draftsman of the first chapter of Genesis instead of Adam Smith, he might have got on a little better. The Lord said, "Let there be light". The first section of this Bill says, "Let there be gas". The second point is that the Lord,
"saw the light, that it was good".
Genesis does not say that the Lord saw the light and that it was economical but "that it was good". That is exactly what the Bill says. If the noble Lord would only learn from Genesis instead of from Adam Smith he would get on better.
Lord Howie of Troon: That is a very interesting intervention, as one might expect, from a very senior and experienced war-hardened practitioner in party politics. But the Lord did not say that the light was "reasonably good". Perhaps I may add one further point before we dispose of this important matter. In the course of his earlier comments the noble Earl introduced yet another word. It was not only economical; not only reasonable, but, "realistic". That is what he said. Is he suggesting that instead of taking out the word "reasonable" he would put in the word "realistic"?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is being even more unreasonable to suggest that I remove "reasonable" and put in "realistic".
Lord Howie of Troon: I said "add".
Earl Ferrers: I shall not add it either because I would then get into trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and have to spend half the night explaining why I put it in. I return to the simple fact. I know that the noble Lord wants to be as economical as possible, but people know what these words mean because they have been used in the past. If one removes "reasonable" those who look at these things will say, "This director or Secretary of State does not have to meet reasonable demands; they can meet unreasonable ones if the only reason it is put in is that the demand should be economical." There may well be occasions when someone might say, "I am prepared to pay for a larger amount of gas and give tremendously
424
increased powers." But that would be to the detriment of other people and it would be unreasonable. Everyone knows what the words mean, including the noble Lord. We had better keep them there.
Lord Peston: I despair. I do not want to get into a discussion about Genesis. I believe that Adam Smith made a contribution to our understanding of the way in which economies work. However, for the life of me I cannot recall seeing that in Genesis or in the tablets of the law. That is by the way.
It now seems to boil down to the fact that we all know what the word means except me. It has been there a long time and it will disturb people if it is taken away. Perhaps I may return to my example of Marks and Spencer. No one ever raises the point that if someone buys a particular item someone else may be unable to take it from the shelf. Markets are about buying things and meeting a price. All the arguments being put forward about gas seem to be part and parcel of a reluctance on the Government's side, which surprises me, to accept what they themselves are doing, which is producing a competitive private sector.
I am not going to press the point because there are other matters on which I wish to divide the Committee. I believe that the Government's side have not understood what is being done.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. If I had the pleasure of a house next to the noble Lord and he was being supplied, not with gas but with water and we were paying the same amount, let us suppose we had a very hot summer and his garden had dried up. He goes to the water authority and says, "I shall pay you twice as much because I want to water my garden, but poor old Ferrers next door can go without water". That would be unreasonable and the noble Lord would be far better off not being allowed to do that.
Lord Peston: I am grateful to the noble Earl. He has described free enterprise capitalism and how, according to Adam Smith, it is supposed to work. If the water is worth more to me than it is to my very good friend Lord Ferrers, I should have it according to free market theories. It is not for me to teach noble Lords opposite the theory of the free market. However, I would not do that because there are other things in life such as behaving decently. But one does not write that kind of thing into Acts of Parliament. One assumes that the world we live in includes decent behaviour and therefore that will not happen.
I am aware that I have managed to make my points but I have not persuaded the noble Earl. I am still tempted to divide the Committee and so have noble Lords opposite voting for a load of nonsense, but we want to get a move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19. leave out ("effective").
The noble Lord said: I shall introduce the amendment and my noble friend Lord Haskel will elaborate on many aspects of it. The difficulty as regards pages 1 and 2 of the Bill is that the matters concerned are all economics and therefore one must use one's own limited expertise at this stage in order to get all that over and done with.
I am very interested in what "effective competition" means. I have looked through all the economic text books on my shelves at home and at college. The words "competition", "pure competition", "perfect competition" and "imperfect competition" appear, but I cannot find "effective competition". My main question is this: what do the Government have in mind here? How will they tell what this is about?
This is all preliminary to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which are the important ones. What really matters is not effective competition, but effective choice, as we shall discuss later. The noble Baroness puts her finger on what is the central issue here.
If it will help the noble Earl, my judgment is that "competition" means that there should be alternative sources of supply; that each should be acting independently of the other; that there should be no collusion; and that the demander should have the ability to discriminate between suppliers. There should also be available full information as regards price, quality and all other related matters. That is what "competition" means—at least, that is what it means in first-year economics lectures.
I now have to ask whether the noble Earl will tell me what the word "effective" adds. I cannot think of anything that it adds, so I do not want the word in the Bill. I have tabled other amendments for a similar reason. I should like the Bill to read as if it was written by someone who understood what they were talking about. In my judgment, that means that the word "effective" has no effect. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I cannot add very much to what my noble friend Lord Peston said. It seems to me that either you have competition or you do not. The word "effective" could imply that suppliers might have an opportunity to sidestep some of their obligations. I am sure that we shall be given assurances that there is nothing sinister in this, but if you need to have effective choice for all classes of customer, there should be no discrimination between large and small, rich and poor, awkward or amenable. The use of the word "effective" seems to give gas suppliers an opportunity to sidestep their obligations.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is being a nitpicker, is he not? He does not like several individual words. I think that "effective" does mean something here. The word is intended to require the director and the Secretary of State to work to ensure not only that competition is established but that it actually works. The whole point of competition is to provide incentives for the providers of a product or service which will result in improvements in their standards for the benefit of consumers. It is also intended to introduce new ideas to meet consumers' needs. That produces a powerful downward pressure on prices. It would not be "effective" competition if the competition was merely nominal. There needs to be a genuine contest for consumers' business so that competition pushes down prices and succeeds in increasing quality.
426
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, finds the concept of "effectiveness" difficult. If he were to be put in the ring with Mike Tyson, that would be competition, but perhaps I may suggest that it would not be effective competition because the noble Lord would be out on his knees in a minute. What we want to see is proper competition.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Earl. If I got in the ring with Mike Tyson, he would, of course, win because he is better than I am. That is what one means by competition. Competition is about different people competing—in the case of gas, for a market. The noble Earl is right to emphasise that companies compete in terms of price, quality and new ideas. That is what competition is. I insist that the word "effective" adds nothing. We shall come to what "effective" adds when we discuss the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which relates to choice.
It seems to me that in relation to competition the role of the Secretary of State and of the director should be to ensure that there is competition. I agree that it should be genuine competition in the sense that there should be no collusion. We should not have something else which Adam Smith worried about; that is, implicit collusion between people who were allegedly competing with each other.
This is another example of something that one sees throughout legislation. I refer to draftsmen having no courage when it comes to the English language. They are frightened of using the straightforward word "competition" and think, "We have to add a word to it. It will not work if we just use the language of ordinary people". They should try to be like Adam Smith or those who translated the Authorised Version. They should use straightforward language. Draftsmen want to add little words, and I do not like it. I would be much happier if people used the language as we know it. But having said that—
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to prolong this debate, except to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord says. I do not like nasty words which do not mean anything, but I believe that the word "effective" means something in this connection. We have to provide competition which works. The noble Lord said that he thought that it would be a very good idea if he was put in the ring with Mike Tyson because that would be competition. Actually, he did not quite say that; that is my flowery interpretation. The fact is that people pay a lot to see Mike Tyson because of the big competition. With respect to the noble Lord, they would not pay very much to see him fight it out with Mike Tyson because he would be flat on his back within 10 seconds. That is not good competition. We want to ensure that the competition is effective.
Lord Peston: People might come to see me because they like a good laugh. Anyway, I might talk Mike Tyson out of it. That is another possibility, but I am not having much success in talking the noble Earl out of anything. We shall have to agree to disagree on this matter. Our remarks are on the record and that is what matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("and to secure effective choice for all classes of consumers supplied with gas by those required to be licensed under section 7A(1) below.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 10. The Gas Consumers Council asked me to table these amendments because it is concerned about the lessening of statutory consumer protection within an otherwise well structured Bill. Any one of the amendments which I have tabled to Clause 1 would, if accepted, do much to restore the balance between the interests of suppliers and consumers. At this point, I must draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that I have tabled four amendments. That gives him such a wide choice that it must be difficult to rule out all of them. Each of the amendments is slightly different, but each would impact on the Bill.
My intention is to extend choice. There are many ways to achieve that objective. On Second Reading I drew attention to the new duties in Clause 1. They require the Secretary of State and the director to "secure effective competition". Perhaps my noble friend will shed some light on his interpretation of that duty. My interpretation is that the Secretary of State and the director must encourage as many new suppliers as possible to enter the market. That is a right and proper duty, but I do not believe that it will necessarily afford choice to all domestic gas consumers.
The objective of my amendments is to redress the imbalance by introducing a new duty in Clause 1 to secure, or alternatively to promote, effective choice for all gas consumers. The success of this legislation for each of the 18 million gas-consuming households will not be judged by the number of suppliers licensed by Ofgas. In reality, consumers will not care whether there are five, 10 or 100 suppliers. Each household will judge the success of the legislation only by whether they have a realistic alternative. British Gas will be the one supplier which is already known to everyone. Will others offer low gas prices and/or equivalent or better standards of service? I look forward to the time when all domestic gas consumers are able to debate with confidence the pros and cons of one supplier in relation to another.
In her 1994 annual report the director general of Ofgas said:
"By 1998 all gas consumers will be able to choose where to buy their gas".
How can she realistically believe that choice will develop to the extent that all gas consumers will have choice available to them by 1998?
My belief would appear to be backed by the Government's standard conditions for the supply licence. Condition 13 gives freedom to all but the dominant supplier to discriminate between classes of consumer. I expect ample competition between many gas suppliers. I think that we shall have the effective competition to which my noble friend referred on the last amendment. However, choice—I emphasise the word "choice"—will
428
exist for only a relatively limited number of gas consumers. In that likely event, what action can we expect the director to take if she has a duty only with regard to competition, not choice? I believe that any one of my amendments would resolve that situation.
The new duty would require the director to encourage suppliers, by all means possible, to enter those areas of the country where choice is sparse or non-existent. It would require the director to encourage suppliers to generate choice for all consumers within their licensed area. The director has a duty under Clause 6 not to grant a licence or extension of a licence which has been framed so as to exclude pensioners, the disabled or those likely to default on paying for their gas supply. That is only the first step to prevent cherry picking and to ensure that the competitive market provides universal choice. It is on the negative side. No sensible supplier will go to the director and say that he wants to supply Westminster, Chelsea and Mayfair but not Camden or Lambeth. The duty contained in Clause 6 prevents him from doing so.
However, once the supplier has received a licence for his area, which may include Camden, Lambeth or whichever other areas he may not wish to supply, there is nothing to prevent him from not supplying customers whom he perceives to be difficult or expensive to serve. He will be able to do that quite easily by not targeting, informing or selling to such customers.
An amendment to promote or secure choice will mean that the director will have to monitor the development of a competitive gas market to establish what choice is available to consumers. I see this taking the form of a requirement on gas suppliers to provide to the director information on the customer mix in their supply portfolios. They may be required to provide the director with the proportion of their customers who are of pensionable age, who are disabled, who are in receipt of state benefit or who are taking supplies by prepayment meters. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was that the DTI and Ofgas should set out how the distribution of the less profitable categories of customer should be monitored. That is one means by which this could be achieved.
I am sure that my noble friend will argue that all suppliers will have an obligation under licence condition 2 of the standard conditions to make available a supply of gas to every potential customer who applies for a supply. This assumes that every consumer is aware that a competitive gas market exists. My amendment would charge the director with the duty to promote choice and to make sure, through the licences and otherwise, that consumers are aware that choice is available, which companies supply their areas and what they have to do to change supplier.
The Gas Bill allows for a levy or, as condition 6A of the standard conditions of the gas supplier's licence calls it, a special customer payment. My noble friend Lord Caithness has tabled an amendment which is concerned with the issue of a levy. The levy may be raised if a supplier has been supplying gas or ancillary services to an undue proportion of premises owned or occupied by those who are disabled, of pensionable age or have defaulted or

429
fallen into arrears in the payment of charges for gas that they have consumed. In effect, it is an acknowledgment of potential market failure.
I believe that my amendment to promote choice will allow the director to define in a wider sense what is meant by special customer payment. Clear definition will encourage gas suppliers to supply less attractive consumers, because they will be more confident that they will receive payment from the levy for costs that they may incur but cannot otherwise recoup.
Each of my four amendments would give the director a duty with regard to choice. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 create a primary duty, and Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 a secondary duty, to secure or promote effective choice.
I should like to end with a simple statement. The Gas Bill should be about bringing choice to consumers. The director general should have a clear and unequivocal duty to do so. I believe that so far the Bill has favoured the gas supply industry over the consumer. My amendments to promote competition and choice, either as a primary or secondary duty—I am happy for it to he either—will redress the balance. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I believe that to champion the cause of the consumer, as I have done at an earlier stage in this debate and now—and will continue to do—reveals a degree of objectivity on my part. I declared on Second Reading that I was chairman of a gas distribution company. Even so, I happen to believe that the interests of all in a market are best served by having satisfied and well safeguarded consumers.
Choice is a matter of great importance. We should not delude ourselves that the creation of effective competition will itself create choice. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there may be areas where there is no effective choice. Those may be distant areas or areas in which, for other reasons, the new supplying companies have no interest and in which there may possibly be no choice. I believe that in those circumstances it is not unreasonable, given that this will remain a regulated business, that the director should comprehend within her duties the obligation to make sure that there is effective choice where there may not be such choice. That can be done by talking to the appropriate suppliers and pointing out to them that under the terms of their licences they are expected to provide choice, which they may not otherwise do. The steps by which that may be done have been described by the noble Baroness, and I need not go through them again. I very much hope that the noble Earl will regard this amendment as a constructive one. He is provided with a choice as to the preferred form of words, but if he agrees with any one of these amendments, he will be rendering consumers a considerable service under the new regime.
Lord Skelmersdale: I live in the south west of England. It may surprise noble Lords to know that even before the ink is dry on this Bill I have received offers to supply me with gas. Regretfully, they have gone straight into the wastepaper basket because I am not connected to
430
gas, and I cannot see any immediate likelihood of being so connected. Nonetheless, the opportunity of choice has already been presented to me. I have no doubt that it will continue to be presented not only to me but to others, first in the trial areas and then more widely when the whole country is opened up to competition in 1998.
As far as the individual amendments are concerned, I am slightly worried by the idea of asking either the Secretary of State or the director of Ofgas to promote effective choice. One can promote until the cows come home, but one may not necessarily get a result. I have been trying to promote myself into well-paying jobs for the past four or five years since I left the position beside my noble friend Earl Ferrers. I have failed, but not for lack of trying. If there is any benefit in this set of amendments, I am sure that what is needed is a duty to secure choice rather than promote it.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes me to speak first. It is very odd that we all wish to speak on this simple matter. My noble friend has moved a series of amendments. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she intends. She wishes to provide all consumers with choice. That is exactly what lies behind the whole purpose of the Bill. The intention of the Government's proposals is to introduce competition in the gas market.
What the amendments say is covered by the Bill's existing provisions. Under Clause 1, the director will have a duty to secure effective competition between suppliers. That will be a primary duty which will guide her in the exercise of her functions. It seems to me that if a case should ever arise where there was an area or a class of customer for whom suppliers were not competing effectively, it would be the director's duty to seek to exercise her functions in such a way as to resolve the lack of competition.
It is not practicable to go further. Although the director is required to seek to create the most favourable circumstances for competition, she cannot make people compete, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said. It is like saying that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
To cast the duty in terms of promoting rather than securing choice would of course help deal with the question of whether the duty went too far, but it would leave very little that is not already provided for. Once the director has secured effective competition in respect of a class of consumers, it is difficult to see what more she could do to promote choice for them. The provisions in the Bill cover the point that my noble friend Lady Gardner is trying to make. I thought we had had this, but she referred to that horrible expression "cherry picking". I would respond to her only in this way, that we believe a competitive market is the best method of ensuring consumer choice.
To begin with suppliers will be keen to establish their market share, and that will provide a strong incentive for them to take on customers rather than to turn them away. That will militate against a selective approach to attracting customers. I do not believe that there should be a legislative obligation on all suppliers to develop an

431
identical portfolio of consumers. It would be absurd to set supply companies any form of quota for a certain number of different customers.
We intend to discourage suppliers from "cherry picking". The director general will have a duty to refuse applicants for licences which artificially exclude an undue proportion of pensioners and the disabled or those likely to default on payments. That is found in Clause 6 on page 8. That is an important provision which will ensure that licence areas do not, for example, exclude areas or estates within a town or city which might be considered to contain an undue proportion of such customers.
All suppliers will have an obligation to supply to all customers in their licence area, irrespective of the customer's income, how much gas they use, or whether they are elderly or disabled. Suppliers will also be obliged to process all applications for supply without undue preference and offer a range of payment methods, including cash, cheque or postal order, so that customers who wish or are able to pay only by those methods can, in practice, go to any supplier.
While I understand what my noble friend is saying, it is difficult to expect the director general to promote competition in that way. Her job is to ensure that competition exists. The results will promote themselves.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to say that the Minister has somewhat lost me on this. The Bill as drafted uses the word "secure" in line 19. It states, "to secure effective competition". So there can be no worry about the word "secure". The Bill uses the word "secure". When I was complaining and moaning to the Minister about what that meant, he told me that it meant essentially what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said: it will secure choice. That is the point of it. Now when she asks why we do not write into the Bill "to secure choice", the Minister seems to argue that that cannot be done because the director general cannot do that. I feel that there is a contradiction here.
The point of the Bill is precisely what the noble Baroness says. I say it is the essence of the Bill. It is not all that was involved. I would fully accept that the regulated monopoly that constitutes British Gas led to a fall in the real price of gas—a point that the Minister has made several times; in other words, a regulated monopoly did lead to an outcome, but it was not an outcome that allowed choice to the ordinary household.
The Bill now introduces competition. Why does it do it? It presumably does it because the Government believe that this structural outcome will be better than a regulated monopoly; otherwise we would leave well alone. We are not going through all this just to occupy the Committee's time; we are doing it because we now believe that the structure of the industry, subject to competition, will be better. What do we mean by "better"? We mean offering choice to consumers, exactly as the noble Baroness says. What are our means? Our means of getting there is competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I wanted the matter set out in that order, with the means coming after the end, but we have lost that battle, at least for this afternoon. Therefore I am at a loss as to why the Minister—other
432
than that he is obviously in no mood to accept any amendment or even to go away and think again—will not say not merely that he welcomes the amendment but that it is his duty to accept it because it is the point of the Bill. That is what I would press him on. Why would he not want to include it, given the arguments that he has put to us this afternoon? May I at least ask him to think again?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord explain why, having spent a good deal of time on the previous amendment to try to take out the word "effective" before the word "competition", he supports an amendment which inserts the adjective "effective" in front of "choice"?
Lord Peston: That is easily done. That in fact is to cede the argument to me. The point is to have competition. If you ask me why I want competition, it is to produce effective choice. It is not effective competition that interests me; it is effective choice. I said that at the time, I might add. I want competition—meaning firms competing with one another. But if you ask me whether I want it for its own sake, the answer is no. I want it because it leads to consumer choice. I regard that as absolutely fundamental to the working of the kind of economic system in which we live. I do not use the word "fundamental" lightly. I have spent my life lecturing on this stuff. I regard competition—I can find some counter examples where it will not work—broadly speaking, as of the essence. And the reason it is of the essence is that it meets consumer demands. Why does it meet consumer demands? Because it offers them choice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord cannot get away with that. If there is not effective competition, there will not be effective choice. What is apparent is that he is prepared to swallow the word "effective" in an amendment against the Government, but not to accept the word "effective" in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, answered the very problem that he put. He said that competition leads to consumer choice. That is so. We agree with him over that. The very first clause says that the purpose is "to secure effective competition". What you cannot do is to secure choice. You cannot "promote choice" which are the words in my noble friend's amendment. What you can do is to secure competition, and competition will lead to choice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened with great interest to what has been said. I do not accept the arguments that my noble friend came back with. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that he had already been offered gas supplies. That is interesting, because it must mean that he is a cherry, and that his area is one that may attract people in the future, even though he does not have a supply now.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said earlier, the firms in question clearly had not done their homework. I cannot be described as a cherry if I am not connected to the public gas main.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I live in a village which did not have gas but does now. We went through great trauma to get it. We had to prove how many people there

433
were. I went through the survey to see how many people in the village had to have it to make it economical to connect it. It has made a tremendous difference to our village life. It is a great advantage. I am grateful to British Gas for doing that.
My noble friend says that the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide choice, but then, as we read it, we find that it is not; it is to provide competition, which he says will lead to choice. But there is no guarantee that it will lead to choice. I would emphasise again that there is a vast difference between "effective"—to use the word that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter used—competition and effective choice. Surely competition is effective if my business is making more money than your business. I will achieve that by using my gas supply to the greatest profit for my company and not for the people to whom I am supplying the gas. They are an important part of my business and of course I am out to get whatever customers come along who will be profitable for me. However, if it is likely that they will present me with a great loss I shall not go out looking for them.
My noble friend said that we do not want every firm to have an identical group of consumers. No, we do not, and the levy for those who are carrying consumers to their disadvantage will help to offset the problem. The Bill provides for a disadvantaged firm to be helped, and my amendment will clarify that.
The noble Lord said that every successful firm will process applications for supply. That brings me to my point. One cannot apply for a supply if one does not know that it exists. Everyone knows that British Gas exists. Whether or not one has gas in one's village, everyone knows that British Gas exists and supplies gas. It is a household name and has been for as long as I can remember. However, if one does not know that there is an alternative supplier one does not know that one has a choice. That is why the director should have the responsibility of promoting the awareness of choice.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that you could promote until the cows come home but without result. That is right but if people are not provided with information how will they discover that a choice exists? There must be a process for that and the person with the responsibility should be the director of Ofgas. It is important to differentiate between competition and choice. I hope that my noble friend will read carefully in Hansard what I have said. I believe that later amendments will bring home more clearly the importance of the availability of choice and the fact that that should be written into the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("promote") and insert ("secure").
The noble Lord said: We can deal with the amendment quickly because the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke to it most effectively. He told the Committee that you can promote until the cows come home but that you cannot necessarily be sure of the results.
The amendment is tabled in order to inquire why the word "promote" is used in paragraph (b) "to promote efficiency" and why the word "secure" is used in paragraph (c) "to secure effective competition". I believe that the word "promote" should be removed and that the word "secure" should be inserted because it is a much stronger word for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, explained so eloquently. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I cannot resist saying that it is for my noble friend Lord Ferrers to defend the wording of the Bill.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: If the word "secure" is put before the word "efficiency" what will he done if efficiency is not secure? That is the dilemma. Efficiency is capable of being promoted but it is incapable of being secured.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord has put his finger on the drafting problem. If the word "secure" is inserted and that does not happen, what will follow? On the other hand, if the word "promote" is used one is under no obligation for anything to happen, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, argued. So why are we wasting our time? We want a wording which leads to something happening or we may as well leave the whole thing out. I have sat through many Bills in this Chamber when we have put in all kinds of vague words which make everyone happy but nothing very much follows. I agree that that is the problem.
What we really want is the efficient use of energy. We have a director general, and we would like him or her to do something to achieve that. If we use the word "secure" we run into the logical problem of what will happen if that does not come about. I suppose that the answer is that the person gets fired or has 10 per cent. taken off his salary. I suppose that we could have performance-related pay. If we use the word "promote" all that will happen is that when we ask what is going on the director general will say, "I recently published pamphlets on promoting energy efficiency", and one thinks, "So what?". That is the problem. We have tabled the amendment in order that we can air it.
The noble Earl earlier mentioned Mike Tyson. Perhaps I may tell him that he has ground me into the dust and, therefore, as regards my Amendment No. 12, which removes the words "and economy" because "efficiency" already covers the point, I am getting fed up with saying, "Let's clean up the Bill and convert it into ordinary English". If I were not ground down I would say that that was the point of Amendment No. 12. The words "and economy" add nothing because "efficiency" covers "and economy". I have accepted defeat and realise that today I shall win no battles on the correct use of language.
Lord Ezra: As someone totally committed to securing energy efficiency, I wish to ask the Minister what is the significance of using different words in paragraphs (b) and (c)? Is securing competition more important in the Government's mind than promoting efficiency and economy? If the two objectives rank similarly why not use the same word in both cases?
Earl Ferrers: It grieves me to think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been ground into the dust but it

435
does not seem to have stopped him talking. Neither the director general nor the Secretary of State are in a position to secure the efficiency of a commercial organisation. One cannot do that. They can act in a way such as will promote efficiency but they cannot secure it. Perhaps they can do that by setting a challenging price control but achieving efficiency is a matter for the board of the company concerned. One can secure only what is in one's control; one cannot secure that which is outside it. However, one can promote it.
The Bill is similar to the 1986 Act and uses the word "promote". It provides the basis for a system of regulation which gives companies an incentive to be more efficient. It also requires the director general taking regulatory decisions to take account of those decisions on the company's efficiency. But the director general cannot secure that customers are efficient. She cannot send her staff to turn down people's thermostats and to close their windows. However, she can promote energy efficiency and that is why the new draft supply licence contains provisions designed to promote energy-efficient packages.
As regards "and economy", perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that one cannot be efficient without being economical but one can be economical without being efficient. That is the reason why we believe that it is best to leave the words as they stand.
Lord Haskel: The way in which we measure the effectiveness of the director general is to see how effective he or she is in securing efficiency. I realise that one cannot be sure that the director general will or will not secure it but certainly one can measure how effective he or she is in doing that. However, I do not wish to prolong the discussion and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 18, after ("functions") insert ("—
(i)")
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 14 is one of those parliamentary absurdities: it is apparently devoid of sense, but it is in fact pregnant with implications. It is linked with a set of amendments all of which I should like to speak to; that is to say, Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18. It is also linked with Amendment No. 20 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench and also with Amendment No. 22. I shall want to return to one or two of those amendments because I believe that what I say could become too convoluted and complicated if I try to deal with all of them at once as they pick up different threads.
The way in which energy is produced and supplied—and, in the case of gas, the way in which it is used—can have major impacts on the environment. The Bill seems to seek parity between electricity and gas as there are many similarities in the wording. However, there is a fundamental difference. The burning of fuel by electricity generators is subject to environmental regulation and there is a mechanism to raise the related costs. But, with gas, it is the end user, the consumer, who burns it. So we have to consider that there is also an appropriate place for
436
environmental regulation and associated costs on its end use. That is one of the points that I make in Amendment No. 17.
As regards Amendment No. 15, I am glad to see that I am at one with my noble friend in that we leave out the word "physical". I am informed that the term has no actual definition in law and that we would be much better off without it.
Amendment No. 17 deals with two points. First, it deals with the fact that we need to consider the environmental impacts of the use of gas by the consumer which I mentioned just now. Gas is a hydrocarbon and, being burnt, it produces water and carbon dioxide. As Members of the Committee will know, the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of major international environmental concern.
Amendment No. 17 also introduces—because of the way that the words fall—the duty on the regulator and on the Minister to have in mind,
"the objective of achieving sustainable development".
We have had some complicated debates on sustainable development in the Environment Bill. But I believe that the concept, although it may be difficult to define, is broadly understood, widely supported in the country and supported by all political parties.
The basis of sustainable development is to reconcile the dual objective of achieving economic development and, at the same time, providing for effective protection and enhancement of the environment. There is no paramountcy of interests in sustainable development, but there must be real and equivalent consideration of all interests, especially the environment. I believe that this fact was fully recognised in the recent Energy Report, particularly in Chapter 5 which is titled, "Energy and the Environment". Therefore, I believe that the concept needs to be brought into the Bill. I also believe that it is entirely consistent with the Government's intention in seeking the goal of sustainable development to ensure that it is there.
My attention in that respect has very sharply been focused by the role that I personally have been invited to play in the programme related to the Government's sustainable development goals; that is to say, in the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. Those things have all happened rather recently, which is why I did not have the opportunity to raise them on Second Reading and why I apologise for introducing such topics now without having, as it were, waved my flag at a previous stage.
As part of my participation in the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, I was invited to chair a working group on energy policy. In order to shorten what I need to say, I have obtained the permission of the two co-chairmen of the Round Table on Sustainable Development—namely, the Secretary of State for the Environment and Professor Sir Richard Southwood—to place in the Library the report of the energy policy working group which I chaired. I believe it has also been circulated to a number of noble Lords. Very briefly, its conclusions (and such conclusions were reinforced by the consensus of the whole Round Table which met on 15th June) were that market forces and sustainability were not mutually reinforcing because they were not intentionally

437
aligned. I hope that this phraseology will appeal to the economist on the Benches opposite, because it seems to me to be a very sensible statement.
In essence, what the Round Table concluded was that an unfettered energy market would not necessarily produce sustainable results because it would not take into account the full range of externalised, environmental costs. Therefore, in the long term—and I believe that this is entirely consistent with everything that I read in the Energy Report—mechanisms will be needed to establish the environmental boundaries within which a free market can operate. The aim of my series of amendments is to do just that.
I should like to point out that there is a very subtle difference between Amendment No. 22, which is tabled in my name, and my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 20. With my noble friend's permission, I should like to return later to Amendment No. 20 in particular. However, I hope that I have made clear the intentions of my amendments. It is of fundamental importance because I believe that the issue was overlooked first of all in the original Gas Bill of 1986. Indeed, we must remember that events have moved on very markedly since that time. Many of the ideas that we now have on environmental protection and sustainable development simply had not properly evolved, or did not exist in 1986.
The way that the Bill is constructed means that we are amending a 1986 Bill. However, as we are in 1995, I believe that we ought to do so with the determination and the understanding of environmental issues which now exist almost a decade later. I beg to move.
5 15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the remarks just made by the noble Earl and especially what he said in relation to Amendment No. 17. I am glad to note from Amendment No. 15 that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is likely to agree that the qualification of environment by the word "physical" will be removed. That was a puzzle to everyone who read the Bill as to precisely what was meant by "physical environment"; indeed, what happened to the rest of the environment? However, I take it that that puzzle has now been removed.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was absolutely right in the two points that he made as regards Amendment No. 17. The first point is that, as now drafted, there is a duty to take into account the effect on the environment—that is, if one leaves out the word "physical"—of,
"activities connected with the conveyance of gas through pipes".
However, I am puzzled as to why that should be limited to the conveyance of gas. Obviously the use of gas is as important, if not more important, than its conveyance. Generally speaking, the conveyance of gas is conducted in ways which are environmentally quite satisfactory. After all, it goes in pipes underground. While we must ensure that it remains environmentally acceptable, what is really important is the use of gas conveyed through the pipes. Therefore, I hope that that will be a non-controversial amendment.
438
Secondly, I believe that the reference to,
"the objective of achieving sustainable development",
is important because we must bear in mind that the satisfaction of consumers is important; that the stimulation of competition is important; but that making that consistent with environmental development is equally important.
I do not believe that any energy industry can now thrive which does not take sufficient account of environmental pressures. We had vivid proof of that the other day in what happened to the Shell oil rig, the company not having taken sufficient account of environmental pressures. Let it be stated in the Bill that that has to be done. I am sure that any self-respecting supplier—I certainly include myself in that—would take environmental considerations seriously. This is not something that any supplier would regard as limiting his freedom of action; on the contrary, it supports the proper supplier in the discharge of his responsibilities. I very much support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in Amendment No. 17.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the importance of taking account of environmental matters, and he referred to the Shell platform. Yet surely here was an instance when all the facts concerning the scientific nature and the environmental benefits of the disposal of the platform were taken into account, but there was an emotional response to those matters. It is important to understand that when we include these phrases in legislation we are dealing with what is scientifically sustainable and with courses of action that are sensible in environmental terms and are based on scientific evidence, and not with emotional evidence that often holds sway. History tells us that an emotional response works against the interests of society as a whole.
Lord Peston: This is an interesting set of amendments and it is the nearest we get to placing the Bill in the context of energy policy and long-term development. I would say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that I take a hard-headed view as to how we approach the environment. We must consider environmental damage, but we must also consider the cost side. I believe there is nothing between us on that. As regards the oil rig that was mentioned, one could argue whether that matter was examined correctly at any stage. However, I take it that there is no suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—there is certainly no suggestion from the rest of us—that one can achieve what one wants with the environment without cost. That is not what we are arguing. I do not think that there is a free ride as regards the environment other than if we approach the environment correctly, that will be enormously beneficial, in particular to our successors. The environmental damage that we suffer was inflicted by our predecessors who did not consider these issues carefully. That is certainly the meaning I give to what the noble Earl refers to as sustainable development. I believe that that involves taking a view into the future and asking ourselves whether we take properly into account, in considering the needs of the future, the costs placed on future generations.

439
I agree with the noble Earl that it has long been recognised that one of the weaknesses of the uncontrolled free market is that it does not lead to an optimal outcome. That does not mean that one destroys the free market; it merely means that one modifies its workings in certain circumstances to improve the outcome. I hope that we are all in agreement on that. I believe that my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon will deal with our Amendment No. 16, which falls within this context, but I want it to be dealt with separately.
I wish to refer to two matters. The main one concerns whether the noble Earl has anything to add—we always use government figures anyway—on recoverable gas reserves in all their different forms: that is, the proven reserves, the probable reserves and the possible reserves. Is it still the department's view that, on perhaps the most pessimistic assumptions, we have, at present rates of use, some 35 years of reserves, or, more optimistically, that we might get as much as 45 years of gas reserves? I am not a great believer in these long-term forecasts anyway. I can still remember, as can other Members of the Committee, the first time I heard that North Sea gas had been discovered. I remember that the reaction was, "Hoorah, there is gas in the North Sea, but we are going to use it up before you can look round". As far as I know, although we have been using it up at a tremendous rate we still seem to have lots of it. I am never as pessimistic as others in this regard. This reminds me of the estimates that economists made of coal reserves in the 19th century. The economists proved to everyone's satisfaction that we would run out of coal in about the first quarter of the 20th century. As it is, quite the reverse has happened and we ended up with far more coal than anyone was ever able to find a use for.
I am not pessimistic as regards gas, but that does not mean that I do not take the question of reserves seriously. I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will say whether there is any more up-to-date information he can give us on that. I also hope that he will say whether he regards it as being within the remit of the director, as already stated, to consider matters of this kind. Perhaps the noble Earl could say whether he thinks Amendment No. 18 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Haskel is not needed from that point of view because the director would make this provision anyway. I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that. Essentially I am trying to be as supportive as I can. I am enormously looking forward to hearing the subtleties of the difference between Amendments Nos. 20 and 22, because I do not think I could write an exam answer on the difference in meaning between those two amendments. Subject to that, my desire has been to be as helpful as I can on this.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I wish to make one further comment on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just made. Past progress shows us that sustainable development is not just a matter of trying to conserve the resources we already have; it is also a matter of allowing society to find solutions to the changing needs for resources and the changing costs of resources. I should strike a note of caution as regards these kinds of amendments. Although, on the one hand, they appear to be helpful in terms of protecting what we have, at the same time we must be careful that they do not limit the
440
development of technology and new business methods to find solutions which deal with people's needs in a different way. It is interesting to note that throughout history we have always satisfied people's needs to a greater rather than to a lesser extent, and we have provided the free market to do that.
Lord Peston: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I am certain that in perhaps 50 years from now when we are all long gone—perhaps not all of us; the younger Peers present will still be with us, assuming they are still Members of this Chamber or its successor body—people in this Chamber will wonder why we wasted time discussing whether gas would run out when they know that the only fuel one uses is something I cannot even think of. The noble Lord is quite right in that regard. However, that does not mean that one neglects a valuable asset while one has it. There are two sides to this matter. The world is always surprising us but this is a valuable asset and we do not wish to see it wasted. I do not think there is any difference between us on that.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he was not quite certain what the physical environment was. I am bound to tell him that I knew the additional word would upset the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We considered it all and we thought that we had better satisfy the noble Lord. Had he been more on the ball and put down the amendment himself, I would have been able to accept it. However, he did not do that, and he accuses me of not accepting amendments.
Lord Peston: I would never doubt the noble Earl's word. I take it he is telling me that if I had tabled the amendment, that would not have been regarded as automatically to be rejected.
Earl Ferrers: My admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would have increased even more had he put it down. However, as he did not, my admiration drops a rung or two down the ladder, but it is still high. It is, I am bound to say, an unrivalled pleasure to share the sponsorship of an amendment with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I share his view that it is necessary to include a definition of the environment. The change was also suggested by the Energy Saving Trust which has held a number of helpful meetings with my department. This provision does meet its concern that the use of the term "physical environment" might be taken not to include the atmosphere.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he was entranced by the subtleties of the difference between the two amendments. I am bound to say that I am a little fascinated by that but only marginally, because I am not quite certain what the difference is. However, I have no doubt that my noble friend will tell me, as he will tell the rest of the Committee later.
The use of the definition of the word "environment" from the Environmental Protection Act, which was also used in the Railways Act 1993, will make it clear that the effects which the director and the Secretary of State must take into account include damage to the atmosphere resulting from the leakage of methane. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend and I share a common view on that.

441
I fear, however, that I cannot be so encouraging about my noble friend's suggestion that the director should have a statutory duty to take account of the objective of achieving sustainable development. The Government attach great importance to that principle. We believe that the Bill will promote sustainable development by harnessing the forces of the profit motive to provide incentives for the efficient use of gas and not the wasteful use of it, which is anti-social to the environment. There is also a specific duty in relation to the efficient use of gas which covers energy efficiency matters. Condition 16 of the draft licence requires energy efficiency advice to be provided. Those measures, together with others in the Bill, will help promote a sustainable development, although the words may not appear on the face of the Bill.
I am afraid that one particular difficulty with my noble friend's proposal is the lack of a satisfactory definition of "sustainable development". The 1995 Act, referred to in the amendment, leaves the matter to guidance from the Secretary of State. While that may be entirely appropriate for an environmental regulator such as the new environment agency, it would cause difficulties in the case of an economic regulator. That is because it could cut across the principle of an independent regulator and, having regard to the breadth of the regulator's powers, that could cause unacceptable uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants me to say that his Amendment No. 18 is unnecessary. I did not do that because I feared that the noble Lord might be upset but I believe that I can satisfy him about that. It is unnecessary. He mentioned in his amendment three specific matters to which the director should have regard in performing her duties. In broad terms, those were oil reserves, the Rio Summit of 1992 and funding the Energy Saving Trust.
I should remind the Committee that the introduction of competition will in itself provide a spur to energy efficiency. While a monopoly supplier has no financial incentive to reduce the overall size of the market, competing suppliers are interested only in increasing their slice of the market, not in the overall size. The Bill, which also allows for suppliers to compete to sell energy packages—warm houses, as it were, rather than therms of gas—therefore removes a major disincentive to energy efficiency.
Amendment No. 18 suggests that the director should have regard to official estimates of the amount of discovered and recoverable reserves of gas. That proposition rather reminds one of the 1970s arguments over depletion policy which the party opposite talked about. We believe that such issues are for the market to resolve. In any event, if the director were to consider the question of gas reserves she might well think there was no need to worry about energy efficiency, as the amount of new gas found on the United Kingdom continental shelf has been greater than production in recent years, despite the fact that production has been rising more quickly each year.
The question of whether the director should have regard to the "Rio commitments" was discussed in another place, when it was noted that the Government expect to achieve those targets, with some considerable margin, by the year 2000. That will be done through a variety of measures which are already in place. Placing a
442
duty on the director to consider that might therefore also have the perverse effect of encouraging a relaxation of effort on energy efficiency.
The question of the funding of projects through the Energy Saving Trust has now been resolved by the announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 11th May that he was making £25 million available annually to the EST between 1996 and when the gas and electricity markets are fully liberalised. That will enable the EST to promote innovative pump-priming schemes which are designed to take advantage of and enhance the effectiveness of the developing competitive markets for energy and energy services. Those measures will be able to operate without raising gas prices, which would have been the only way the regulator could have funded the trust.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that Amendment No. 18 is not necessary.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: With regard to Amendment No. 17, the noble Earl told us that he is not disposed to accept the objective of achieving sustainable development. I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will deal with that. But the Minister did not indicate whether he would accept the first part of the amendment which adds the words:
"and the use of gas conveyed through pipes".
Earl Ferrers: I meant to make it clear that I am not keen on that and therefore I do not advise the Committee to accept it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I have indicated to the Committee that I should like to return to Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 because they deal with separate issues.
Amendment No. 14 is linked to Amendment No. 15, which I assume the Committee will accept, and in particular to Amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 14 is a necessary precursor of Amendment No. 17 because it creates paragraph (i).
I apologise for the fact that I raise this matter rather precipitously. That is because my attention was focused so sharply by my experiences of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. It is extremely important that full consideration should be given to the Round Table's deliberations, but I recognise that I have given the Committee very short notice and very little time for the matters to be assimilated at official level. Nevertheless, as Members of the Committee who care to consult the documents, copies of which are placed in the Library, will see, it brought together an extremely powerful group of people who gave their time to put their heads together for that one day.
My amendments were prompted by my appreciation of how important it is that we should consider the use of gas because it contributes directly to the carbon dioxide load; and how important it is that ultimately there should be reference to sustainable development in the Bill. Therefore, for the time being I wish to withdraw the

443
amendments but I believe that it is appropriate that they should be considered in due course and I shall return to this matter on Report.
Lord Peston: Before that happens, will the noble Earl make clear which amendments he is withdrawing?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I shall withdraw Amendment No. 14 and I shall not move Amendment No. 17 because they are inextricably linked. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("physical").
The noble Earl said: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for asking that question because I had a horrible feeling that my amendment might have gone down the plughole. That is not the intention and I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 19, after ("with") insert ("the construction of any pipeline and").
The noble Lord said: I am now totally at a loss as to what is going on. I was looking forward to hearing an explanation of Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 which are grouped with the amendments that we have just debated. Shall we be returning to those amendments in a few moments?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am working on the assumption that my noble friend will move Amendment No. 20, because that amendment stands in his name, and I shall then have the opportunity to speak again to Amendment No. 22 and explain the differences and some of the background.
Earl Ferrers: That seems to be reasonable. I intend to move Amendment No. 20. I am not certain about the nice nuances in relation to those two amendments and I look forward to hearing about those with a certain amount of trepidation.
Lord Peston: I am fairly sure that that is not within our rules but I am always extremely reasonable. I shall not object to that procedure when we reach those amendments.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is perfectly clear that the list of groupings is advisory and not obligatory. I am absolutely sure that it is the correct behaviour.
Lord Peston: I am not suggesting for one moment that it is incorrect behaviour. I am pleased to know that we shall have an explanation in relation to Amendment No. 20 in a few moments. Therefore, I should now like to speak to the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon. It might have been useful if the amendment had been grouped with the others.
I simply raise briefly—I am sure that my noble friend would have been able to deal with the issue in a more sophisticated way—the question as to why the Bill is written as it is. It refers to the effect on the environment of
444
activities connected with the conveyance of gas through pipes. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, refers to, "the use of gas conveyed through pipes." Common sense tells me that what might damage the environment—it is where the issue arises in practice—is the building of pipelines. Once the pipelines have been built underground, with the area made good again, all is well. In the meantime, the environment has taken a terrible beating. I am puzzled as to why the construction of any pipeline was not included.
It may be that that concept is subsumed logically under the conveyance of gas: that one cannot convey it unless one builds some pipes and that therefore if one is taking into account the conveyance of gas, one is taking into account the construction. If that is what the noble Earl is about to tell me, it will satisfy me. If he is not, I emphasise to him that for those who are worried about the world in which we live, digging up the ground and making a terrible mess which seems to go on endlessly is about as bad a destruction of the environment as anything I can think of.
That is the purpose of the amendment. To go back to my earlier remark, I should like to be assured that the amendment is not needed and that the matter is subsumed in the Bill as drafted. It is an important consideration.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: In this case my noble friend Lord Ferrers will not be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Peston, any satisfaction. I hope that I may be able to do so. Of course, we agree that the construction of gas pipelines that are likely to have significant effects on the environment should only be allowed to go ahead if those effects are properly assessed first and taken into account. That is why it is our intention to bring forward later this year an order under the European Communities Act 1972 to provide that procedure. We believe that those arrangements will meet the concerns underlying the amendment and that in this country we shall continue to have high pressure pipelines installed to our current high standards.
If one thinks about it, it would not be practicable for the director to consider the construction of every single pipeline. Those which are likely to have an environmental impact will be dealt with by environmental assessment. As to those which are not, British Gas has enough short low pressure pipelines to go several times around the world. For the director to consider each addition to this vast spider's web, cat's cradle, call it what you will, would create an enormous bureaucracy to little effect.
It is interesting that earlier the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, commented that this aspect of gas was not environmentally intrusive in general. Any general matters which arise from the pipes which are not subject to environmental assessment will fall within the more general requirement to consider activities connected with the conveyance of gas. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Peston, some comfort.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord, and I apologise to him. Perhaps he will accept that when I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, it subsumes the noble Earl, Lord

445
Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and anyone else sitting on the Government Front Bench who fancies speaking.
The noble Lord's answer was extremely reassuring, if I understood it. I gather that such a consideration will be taken into account but that we do not need to provide for it in the Bill because we shall make provision under a European directive that we shall all be extremely pleased to support. Therefore the answer is doubly good.
I accept the fact that we cannot become involved in all the detail. However, such pipelines can be an environmental mess and we wish to have high standards as regards taking into account the environment. I am pleased with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert ("or in receipt of one or more of the means-tested benefits").
The noble Baroness said: We are glad that the requirement that the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age are taken into account by the Secretary of State and the director general in the exercise of their duties. As one of pensionable age, I am particularly glad that that is so. I noted with amusement that my noble friend has put my name to all those amendments which are attached to those of pensionable age—so here I go!
We are concerned that the special circumstances of other equally vulnerable consumers are not afforded similar considerations, particularly those on the lowest incomes. For example, the provision of free gas safety checks is one of the tangible benefits currently available to elderly and disabled customers. Yet the risks of using poorly maintained or rarely serviced gas appliances are not confined to those consumers.
It is a fact that those on the lowest incomes may be at much greater risk because they are less able to afford the costs of servicing equipment than many pensioners or disabled people. Similarly, the commitment not to disconnect pensioner households in the winter months recognises that elderly people are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of hypothermia and cold-related illnesses. However, the same is true of young children, as the Government recognise through their scheme for making extra payments to meet fuel costs for income support claimants in periods of severe weather.
We wish therefore to see some additional degree of protection afforded to customers who are financially disadvantaged. That means that we wish to add the words in the amendment,
"or in receipt of one or more of the means-tested benefits".
beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment. We recognise that pensioners and disabled people have special needs in relation to gas. As she pointed out, they may be more susceptible to cold if the supply fails. They may need prepayment meters moved to more accessible locations. They may need adaptors for appliances or help with safety checks.
446
However, the real interest of low income consumers is in cheaper gas. That is very similar to the interests of all other customers. Low income customers do not have special requirements as to the quality of gas supply services provided.
Nor is it accurate to equate low income customers with those likely to default on gas charges. Many poor people make a point of saving up in advance and paying their gas bills as soon as they arrive. Indeed, if one considers across society it is by no means always the case that those who are the least well off are the most reluctant to pay their bills.
It is right that it should be the director's duty to consider those who might be at risk of disconnection. That is covered by the duty to protect the interests of consumers as respects continuity of supply. Adequate provision already exists in the Bill. All suppliers, as a condition of their licences, will have to follow debt and disconnection procedures, which will protect any customer who has genuine difficulties in paying promptly due to misfortune or inability to deal with gas supplied on credit terms. I hope that that helps to explain the current position as set out in the Bill.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. There is nothing between us. It has been the theme throughout that we all benefit from cheap gas in real terms. However, we are also interested in the quality of service.
The noble Lord has put the Government's position as clearly as he can. The logic of it is that while pensioners and disabled people have an interest in the real price of gas, as we all do, they have some additional interests. Does the Minister ask us to accept that very poor people do not have additional interests? One can single out the old or disabled; they have special interests. We do not disagree. But, as my noble friend argues, separate from the real price of gas, low income earners have other interests as regards service, the availability of supplies, and so on. That is for one good reason. Those people often have difficulty coping with life. I do not seek to denigrate that group. In emphasising the interests of old people, the noble Lord does not suggest that they all have problems. He simply states that some within the group have problems.
I believe that we on these Benches maintain a valid position in emphasising this factor. We refer to "means-tested benefits" as the criteria because one has to find simple language rather than use the general word "poor", or the phrase "unable to cope". Logically, the Government should think more about the matter, especially since—I emphasise this, as it goes with points we made earlier on energy efficiency—we are not asking a great deal in the amendment. All that is asked is that the director "shall take into account." There is no duty. We do not use the word "promote"; we do not even have the word "secure". The amendment simply relates to the very limited idea, "take into account". A sensitive, caring Government—I know that we are in the presence of leading Ministers—would take this idea very seriously as an additional criterion. I am not clear whether we shall press this amendment to a Division. I shall leave that decision to my noble friend. However, the Government

447
may wish to reflect upon providing a form of words, broadening what the director shall take account of in this broad area. That is my point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is a serious point here which I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider. The definition,
"those who are disabled or of pensionable age",
seems to exclude quite a number of people who suffer physical disabilities or weaknesses of one sort or another. After all, you are not disabled or of pensionable age if you happen to have suffered very severe and prolonged illness which does not actually constitute disability, and you may still be below pensionable age. It appears that the very proper provision made in the Bill for these two categories should be examined to see whether it goes far enough. My view is that it should be extended. Whether the precise terms of the amendment, referring to those in receipt of means tested benefits generally, are right, I am not certain. But some expansion of the categories should be considered.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend tell me what is meant by "disabled" in the Bill? Does the word not need a definition?
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend answers that question, in the debates on social security legislation I have often made the point that it is my standard belief that disabled people are people first, and disabled second. There is a certain logic in that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding.
To carry that thought through to this Bill and this amendment, I certainly go along with my noble friend Lord Inglewood. He suggests that just because people are on means tested benefit it does not mean that they need special protection vis-a-vis the Bill. What it does mean is that they need special protection from the point of view of the value of means tested benefits, and all the back-up and passported benefits to which that leads.
I conclude that domestic gas customers on means tested benefits have virtually the same needs, with the exception of paying for the gas, as do domestic gas customers who are not on means tested benefits.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As to what "disabled" means, the Disability Discrimination Bill now before the House includes a very adequate description of what constitutes a disabled person. Surely it would be logical for the Government to use the same definition.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely grateful to the Members of the Committee who have participated in this helpful debate on an important subject. Perhaps I may try to elaborate the position. Obviously, we shall consider carefully the points made; they are of importance to all kinds of people.
So far as any definition of "disability" is concerned, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes pointed out we discussed the matter at great length in relation to the Disability Discrimination Bill—as I know to my cost! To take the word "disabled" in this context, Condition 17 of the draft standard conditions of the gas suppliers'
448
licence, spells out what is meant. The definition given is a registered disabled person or someone in receipt of social security benefit by reason of disability.
The fundamental point that we have discussed was introduced by—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. I understood that the term "registered disabled" would be discontinued after the Bill comes into force.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point which we shall no doubt have to consider carefully in the context of the draft conditions.
The crux of the debate relates to whether or not the requirements of people who are less well off are in some way qualitatively different from those of people who are disabled or old. Our approach has been that those people's requirements are essentially subsumed into the wider definition of "consumer" which is found in new Section 4(3) which we are discussing.
It seems to us that the kind of problems in which consumers on low incomes are interested are exactly the same type as those problems in which all consumers are interested. Since they are part of the larger group, it follows that their interests are inherently at the heart of the concerns of the director in considering this matter in the general terms set out.
I accept entirely the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We shall seriously reflect upon it. We do not want to find that we have created a hole through which some people may fall. It is our view, however, that the position of the people described will be properly covered by the definition in this part of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to my noble friend for saying that he will look into the question. It seems to me that you cannot run the two arguments together; namely, that the Bill generally takes care of all cases of hardship and need but that there should be special provisions for those who are disabled or of pensionable age. If disabled people or those of pensionable age are given a special status, it is very important that the line of demarcation separating them from others should be drawn at the right place. All I did was express a doubt as to whether that was so.
Baroness David: I am extremely grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It seems to me that there is not much logic in the remarks of the noble Lord on the Front Bench. If all consumers are to be considered, certainly the disabled and the elderly are part of that group. I do not see any reason why the very poor should not be considered in the same way as the disabled and the elderly. I understand that the noble Lord intends to take this amendment back and look at it again, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked. If he is prepared to do that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("() In this section 'environment' has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
The noble Earl said: We discussed this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I wish to make two points in relation to Amendment No. 22 which is grouped with Amendment No. 20. First, I received a comment from a friend of mine who is a professor of law that the duty to "take into account" which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, just mentioned and which is the subject of the subsection is perhaps the weakest possible duty that is worth specifying in law. This point is very important. I certainly intend, by withdrawing my amendment, to give my noble friend the opportunity to take this matter back and consider it in the context of the debate on sustainability that is fundamental to all government policy at the moment. In this Committee, we have been cross-referring to other Bills and other debates in this Chamber. I should like to import into the discussion the debate on the difference between "further" and "taking into account" that we had during the passage of the Environment Bill. If the environment is to be given parity, as it has to be within the context of sustainability, the duty to "take into account" is phenomenally weak. That is one point that I wanted to make.
I said that I would disclose the difference between my noble friend's amendment and my amendment, Amendment No. 22. It is that he has restricted the definition of "the environment" to Section 1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, whereas I refer to the entire section. Section 1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act defines the "environment" as consisting of "the air, water and land" and so on, and "the air within other natural or man-made structures". Subsection (3) goes on to define pollution in terms of harm to the environment. Then, subsection (4) states:
"'Harm' means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part",
and so on. I want to be absolutely sure that if we accept a definition of the environment that is only based on Section 1(2), it is big enough to include not merely the inanimate things that are mentioned. That would leave us, in my view, back where we were with the "physical environment". If we are talking about the physical environment we are talking about air, water and land. But it seems to me absolutely essential that we should make it quite clear that, by removing "physical"—as we have done by Amendment No. 15—we include in the environment the health of living organisms, the protection of ecological systems, and so on. That is the proper definition of the environment.
I hope that my noble friend will give himself the opportunity to consider that, from the point of view of sustainability, we must consider not merely the physical environment. We have taken out "physical" and must make sure that the definition of environment includes living organisms. That is why my amendment differs from my noble friend's amendment. I refer to the whole of Section 1 and he refers to only one subsection.
450
Let me make a third point. My noble friend has already commented on the inadequacy of my definition of sustainable development. I agree that it is very difficult to define. Nonetheless, it is said to be a fundamental plank of government policy. In order to find some sort of peg on which to hang this matter, I referred to what will he a clause of what is still a Bill—I suppose that it is a passage in a Bill and therefore capable of refinement in theory, but I needed some sort of peg. I agree with my noble friend's criticism that it is not a particularly good peg to hang sustainable development on. But if sustainable development is a key plank of all government policy, somewhere there must be some definition of it.
A definition is beginning to emerge. Perhaps I may quote from the draft management statement of the Environment Agency which has been released. It says:
"The basis of the strategy is a commitment to the goal of sustainable development. This seeks to reconcile the dual objectives of achieving economic development and of providing effective protection and enhancement of the environment".
That is perhaps an acceptable definition of sustainable development. Those are the Government's own words.
If my noble friend can assure me that reference to Section 1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act brings in the living environment as well as the physical environment, I shall believe that my peg was not that bad. Reference to Section 4 of what will be the Environment Act would by inference bring in the draft management statement of the Environment Agency. I give notice that I shall withdraw Amendment No. 22 in order that proper consideration may be given to this issue, and I can come back at Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: If the Committee is good enough to accept Amendment No. 20, I shall certainly look into the point to see whether or not the matters referred to by the noble Earl in Amendment No. 22 are covered. The draftsman suggested putting in Section 1(2), as in my amendment. I shall certainly consider the matter further in the light of what my noble friend said. If he is content with that, and I hope that he will be, I suggest that Amendment No. 20 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("() In performing his duty under subsection (2) above the Director shall ensure that any one gas supplier charges at a uniform rate across Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: I have searched for some way to introduce into these deliberations the whole question of pricing, charging and so on. I found it very difficult. There is not much about that in the Bill and what there is will probably be in the standard licences and such matters. Some of that material I have only had sight of in the past day or so.
Harkening back to the Second Reading of the Bill, I asked what was the Government's view of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to the effect that a consequence of this Bill introducing competition would be that some consumers would suffer higher prices. I assume that the argument would have been that as the British Gas monopoly, regulated in private hands, is engaged in a degree of cross-subsidisation or

451
something of that kind, or else for goodwill, it was felt desirable that everybody should pay the same price for gas. But there is no obligation to do so once there is much more of a free market. On the one hand, people will charge what the market can bear and, on the other hand, their prices will be more finely tuned to the cost of supply. That, I think, was the nature of the argument.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, first replied:
"There is no reason to believe that competition will lead to higher prices for any consumers".
That was his answer. I had already argued—as I have just repeated—that I could think of quite good reasons why that might lead to increases in prices for some consumers, and so did the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. But then the noble Earl added, quite rightly:
"However, the nature of a competitive market is that one can never guarantee that. There may be some price variations on the general downward trend and we must see what the result is".—[Official Report, 6/6/95; col. 1302.]
I do not know what that means.
I tabled this amendment to obtain some clarification of the Government's view, first, on what they believe more precisely is likely to happen; and, secondly, on what they consider is desirable. If one were wearing a very harsh, hard economist's hat, one would say—to return to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who was, I believe, referring to the south west—that if it is more expensive to deliver gas to consumers in the south-west, that is too bad and they will have to pay more. That would he what one would say wearing the classic economist's hat.
I am interested in whether that is what the Government believe and say, "Well, that is all right. That is the way markets work and we have to accept that". I myself make no value judgment. At the moment, I am still in an exploratory mood on this matter, wanting to know what would happen. We may have to come back to this matter when I have explored the licences rather more carefully and know what would be involved.
Let me put the matter as simply as I can. With my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis I state in this amendment that:
"the Director shall ensure that any one gas supplier charges at a uniform rate across Great Britain".
Am I right in believing that that is not remotely the intention of the Bill and that the Government would not accept that point? Would they say, "That is now a complete irrelevance so far as the working of the free market is concerned"?
The amendment has been tabled in order to find a view and a clarification of what the Government believe is likely to happen and equally what the Government believe ought to happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find the amendment rather dangerous. I have checked on what various suppliers do. For example, Marks and Spencer tell me that one pays the same in central London as in the north of Scotland. But I went on an official parliamentary visit to Boots. I was interested to see that in Watford I was able to buy items more cheaply than I could buy them in central London—the same shop and the same stock. It was explained to me that that was because the overheads were very much less in Watford. I thought that if I had been
452
buying a large quantity of articles, it would have almost paid me to drive out there. Retailers and, I imagine, suppliers, would think the same way.
But what worries me most of all is that if there were an obligation to charge the same price everywhere, surely that would encourage the competition only to offer to supply in the area that was the most profitable. That is what worries me. Rather than consider offering to supply somewhere non-profitable, people would say, "Yes, I shall offer it all at the same price but I shall restrict the places where I am prepared to do it". I believe that this is a dangerous amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: On that point, there is the consideration that there is a cost to move gas around the country. I have no idea what TransCo's charging policy is or may be in the future, and I do not expect the noble Lord knows either. But it would be perfectly logical—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will see it if he puts on his economist's hat—for it to be charged by, for example, the mile of transport. It is perfectly obvious therefore that one is bound to have different charges for domestic gas in various parts of the country, depending on how far from the landing terminal the customer is.
I am sure that the point raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner about the corporate costs in specific areas of the country will also come into play. Gas company A may sell gas at one price in Scotland and exactly the same company may sell exactly the same gas from exactly the same source at a different price in North Yorkshire or the East End of London.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist this amendment. It would be pernicious in its effect in two ways. First, it would discourage the producer of gas from producing it for supply to an area where the cost of supplying it—because of distance or other physical factors—is too high; the producer will simply not move in to that area. Secondly, where the sale of gas is highly profitable, it prevents a reduction being made in order to maintain and develop a good market. Therefore, restricting either increase or decrease of the standard rate would be extremely harmful to the whole operation of the system.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: There is another complication to be taken into account. There are shades of the old railway clearing house, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as an economist, will remember, where there were published rates for every class of goods on the railways. All anybody had to do who wanted to compete with the railways was to go below that rate. Were prices to be uniform for any one supplier across the United Kingdom, they would be subject to that sort of selective competition.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the actual cost in any locality by any one supplier across the United Kingdom will not, as my noble friend observed, be uniform. Therefore, were the amendment to be adopted, it would produce less competition rather than more, and would be detrimental to the interests of consumers. For that reason it should not be adopted.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the debate on this important point. In reply to the basic proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether he is right, I am afraid that, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we do not think he is. However, I will endeavour, in this probing amendment, to indicate what we think will happen and what is desirable.
I am afraid that what has been proposed simply will not work. Its effect would be to deter national suppliers from entering the market. A national supplier bound to a uniform price structure would not be able to compete against a regional supplier operating in a less expensive region, unless he cut his national prices so he was losing money in the more expensive regions. The most likely outcome would be for him to split his business in two. That way his position would be preserved and he would defeat the purpose of the amendment.
The point made about consumers is important. If the system described by the noble Lord were in operation, in areas where it was possible for people to supply gas at a lower price than elsewhere in the network of any specific supplier, the consumers in that locality would be paying more than they need. That does not seem to me to be in the interests of consumers; nor does it seem to be a proper operation of the principles of competition, about which we heard earlier in the debate this afternoon.
We must always remember that, while price variations may emerge, this is set against a strong general downward pressure on prices. Independent suppliers are saying that they can beat British Gas's prices by 10 per cent. To hang on to the old-fashioned approach risks sacrificing the benefits of competition in the name of equality. That is not in the interests of the public. If one looks around, there are plenty of commodities of an identical nature which cost different amounts in different parts of the country. For example, beer is a commodity that a number of us buy from time to time. It is differently priced in different areas. Another example is housing. Two physically identical houses can cost considerably different sums of money in different parts of the country.
The amendment implies that customers in the south west, and other outlying regions, will be disadvantaged by the introduction of competition. Judging by the response to the recent consultation on where competition should initially be introduced, it would seem that customers in the south west do not agree. We had many requests from local authorities and MPs from the south west—no doubt friends and neighbours of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—urging for the area to be the first to benefit from competition in gas supply.
The truth is that there has never been a requirement for a uniform pricing structure for gas throughout the country. When such proposals were made in 1986, they were explicitly rejected by Parliament, which preferred to back the Minister's view that suppliers should be able to charge prices that reflect overall costs. Ofgas has said that the present variation in long-distance pipeline tariffs is likely, if passed on by suppliers, to involve a differential of plus or minus 2 per cent. of final prices.
454
I hope that that gives an indication of our view of the current background to this proposal.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister. He may be surprised to know that I agree with most of what has been said, which was the whole point of tabling the amendment. On the question of the difference in cost of supply across the country, that is always a subject that has intrigued me as an economist. The noble Baroness named Marks & Spencer, and Sainsbury's also seems to charge the same. I did not know, and would have guessed the opposite, that Boots did not. I am amazed to discover that Boots has differential pricing according to the cost of transport. However, I gather that a senior Boots' person will soon be joining the House and we can ask him about his company's pricing policy. I have always been surprised at the uniformity of prices in some of our major companies.
My point relates precisely to what noble Lords have said; that there are differences in the costs of supply; the working of a competitive market will reflect those costs. But British Gas, whether or not it has a legal obligation to do so, did not set its prices in that way, which is why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that some consumers' prices may be increased. That was the point of the amendment.
The Minister has committed himself, unless he changes his mind—supported by his noble friends—to the argument that if somewhere, in some marginal constituency at some critical moment in the near future, the effect of competition is for British Gas to say, "We are not interested any more; we have been supplying the gas to this area and losing money on it; we are out", the new supplier will come in competitively and say, "I can make a living here, at a higher price". The Government will say, "Excellent". They will say to one of their right honourable friends, "I am sorry; you have just lost your seat on this, but that is the effect of the market and we believe in the market".
That is what underlines my arguments. I do not disagree with the noble Lord's analysis of how the market will work. However, I cannot see how the Government can accept that analysis and also say that prices for some people will not go up. There must at least be a danger for some people that they will go up because, to use my own expression, the new suppliers must be more finely tuned to the cost of supply. That is the point. I tabled the amendment not because I felt that one could do this, but precisely because, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, one cannot do this in the new market. The consequences will be serious for a few, perhaps a minority, but a few.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, he should bear in mind the natural economic activity of the customer and potential customer. He postulated a case where British Gas has been supplying at a loss for years and a competitor comes along and offers gas at a higher price. The consumer will not accept that.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord misses the point. I am not privy to the detail of British Gas's costings, and presumably nor is the noble Lord. But, to use an

455
expression which I hate, it is common knowledge that there is some degree of cross-subsidisation in the private monopoly, as there was in the public monopoly.
I take it that British Gas, whose duty it must be to make a living, to make a profit and to behave economically, will look at some of its activities and say, "We no longer have a duty to supply at below cost". Therefore, it will get out of the market. That is the point I am making. Someone else will come in and say, "I can supply in this market but it will he at a higher price". That is my only argument. I am not suggesting that it will happen all over the place. On the contrary, British Gas will operate competitively very effectively where it can. But if I am right—I have not seen the figures—that there is some cross-subsidy, the market will remove it and that will affect those consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, "So be it", and in a sense he is right. That is what markets do. Those of us in London cannot suddenly have a row with Boots because the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has told us that somewhere in the country we can get our razor blades more cheaply. Again, so be it. Having said that, I moved the amendment in order to hear the Government's view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert:
("() In performing his duties under this Part, the Director shall—

(a) take all reasonable steps to consult persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons or bodies likely to he affected by the performance of those duties; and

(b) take all reasonable steps to explain and publicise his reasons for any decision made under this Part." ").

The noble Lord said: This is another amendment concerning consumers. Various consumer bodies have been in touch with many of your Lordships. They believe that the Bill is deficient in that it does not oblige the director general to consult them, to take their views into account, and so on. They do not understand—I am certain that I am not the only noble Lord whom they have approached on the matter—why the duty to consult people who represent consumer views is not put explicitly on the face of the Bill.
The director has to take into account the interests of consumers but in practice the way to do that is to consult these bodies. They are extremely effective, they are extremely well-informed and they are extremely intelligent. The point of the amendment is to press the Government to take the matter seriously and at least to begin to answer why the consumer bodies have been left out. Were they left out on purpose, or were they left out because they were forgotten? I am seeking some arguments and reasons.
My own judgment is that at this stage this would be a useful amendment to include. I am not saying that in many years to come, if the industry settles down and is seen to be working well, problems of this kind will arise on any great scale. But at this stage I should have thought that the Government would want to say that the director should
456
carry out such consultation and that they would want that consultation process as a duty on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I hope I shall be able to explain the background to our position in answering some of the noble Lord's points. The Government are strongly in favour of the regulation of the gas industry being as transparent as possible. In practice, the director general consults widely on all significant decisions. That is good administrative practice and we applaud it.
The Bill nevertheless provides for specific consultation obligations in respect of the more significant functions of the director. She is required to consult before making any substantive licence modification under Section 23 or before making any modification to the standard conditions of licences at the time when a licence is granted—that is, new Section 8 of the Bill, provided for in Clause 8. These are among the most important procedures by which the director will be able to give effect to the duties set out in Clauses 1 and 2.
These sections contain obligations on the director to give notice stating that she proposes to make the modifications and setting out their effect and stating the reasons why she proposes to make the modifications. Notice is to be given so as to bring it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the modifications and the director is also specifically required to send a copy to relevant licence holders, to the Secretary of State, to the Health and Safety Executive and to the Gas Consumers' Council. All representations must then he considered.
There are also requirements to consult, tailored to meet the appropriate requirements of the case, contained where necessary within other parts of the Bill which confer specific functions on the Secretary of State or on the director.
I believe that this approach is more appropriate than the blanket requirement proposed by Amendment No. 23. It allows for as much consultation as is necessary in each case, without imposing an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State or the director.
A requirement to consult on all decisions and give reasons in each case would lead to the whole regulatory process becoming gummed up. It would also lead to a much more legalistic approach to regulation, with the spectre of judicial review in the background, which might well act to the advantage of large companies rather than consumers as they could afford better to pay for elaborate legal advice. It is better, as we have done, to look at the requirements for consultation very much on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He has made one or two good points which I had not thought about. I shall certainly reflect on what he said. It had not occurred to me—but then I am not an expert draftsman—that one had in mind businesses being able to intervene on the same basis as I was assuming consumers and their representatives would be consulted. I shall certainly have to reflect on whether the amendment fails simply because it does not point to what I wanted it to point to.
It was also not my desire to get in the way of efficient administration. The Gas Consumers' Council is an excellent body and I have been very impressed with what

457
it has done. That is also true of the National Consumers' Council and the Consumers' Association and various of the other bodies which have been in touch with me, including those representing special interests, such as the elderly and so on. I was not trying to argue that I believed that the director would not look at these people. I assumed that the director would be a sensible person who would be in touch with such bodies—she would be foolhardy not to—saying, "This is what I am proposing to do. What do you think?" I am sure the Minister would agree with me that once these bodies knew what was going on they would get in touch with the director anyway and say, "We hear you are thinking of doing this, which we do not like. We would like to submit the following comments to you". I do not think I am over-egging the pudding. I am simply saying that I would like it done in a formal way so that consumer consultation is taken for granted and is not ad hoc.
Having said that, I was impressed by the one or two difficulties which the noble Lord raised. I certainly do not want companies using great batteries of lawyers to hold up important decisions simply because, in the American style, they know that that is the way of avoiding the unpleasant day to come. I would not like my amendment to lead to that under any circumstances. I shall rethink that part. But I believe that I have made my point. The noble Lord has uttered one or two sympathetic remarks, which pleased me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to consult with the Health and Safety Executive with the objective of securing that any public gas transporter, retailer, shipper or supplier who may have cause to undertake work on any gas supply meter, gas fitting or appliance shall ensure that—

(a) any employee or third party contractor is suitably qualified in the relevant aspects of gas distribution, installation or service;

(b) any third party contractor undertaking such work is registered with an appropriate recognised trade body approved by the Health and Safety Executive." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 58. These amendments are about health and safety. The 1986 regulations say that people handling gas and gas appliances should be "competent". We have moved on a long way since then and there are a lot of new suppliers and new firms coming into the business. It appears to me that we ought to define the qualifications rather more precisely. It is a way of raising the standards both for the consumer and also for those who are installing gas equipment and maintaining it. It will also prevent suppliers putting out safety work to non-qualified staff. British Gas has a very high standard of training. Under the existing regulations it maintains that all its people are trained to City and Guilds level or NVQ Level No. 3.
The purpose of these amendments is to see whether there should be some standard of training defined so that the quality of service is maintained. Gas is a dangerous thing to handle. There is no fail-safe as there is with electricity. One does not have a fuse-box with gas, so it is
458
difficult to switch it off. Therefore, it is important to make sure that only properly qualified people handle the appliances and installations. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: These three amendments are totally redundant as the matter is entirely covered by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994, and the Health and Safety Executive, including the corresponding provisions of the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers. The various points made by the noble Lord are entirely covered by the existing arrangements and therefore these amendments are superfluous.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the Government are determined to maintain high levels of safety in the gas industry. That is absolutely vital. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults that these amendments are redundant because the points raised in them are covered elsewhere. We asked the Health and Safety Commission to undertake a thorough study into all these issues. It did that and we accepted its report.
The matters which the amendments seek to regulate are substantially, and more appropriately, dealt with elsewhere. The principal instrument is the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. These require that only competent people may do work on any gas fitting. This includes all gas appliances, pipework in the house beyond the meter and the meter itself. The regulations also require that all companies and self-employed persons doing work on gas fittings must be members of an approved class of persons. At present, that means that they must be registered with CORGI.
Up to the point of the meter, the responsibility for safety lies with the public gas transporter. At present that arises under the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, but I understand that the Health and Safety Executive is preparing new regulations to set down more explicit rules in relation to gas pipelines and the management of public gas transporter systems. These will impose specific duties on public gas transporters for the safe construction, maintenance and abandonment of gas pipelines.
The arrangements which the Government are proposing will meet the necessary requirements of safety. The safety issues which are contained in the noble Lord's amendment are therefore already provided for, either in statute or in regulations. The changes which he is proposing would in fact not only be unnecessary, but cut across those arrangements. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that the concerns which he has drawn to our attention are already met.
Lord Haskel: I am glad that these concerns are already met. I wish to make two comments. As regards registration with CORGI, I understand that it is the company which is registered and not the individual operatives of the company. The company can register itself as a CORGI fitter, but it is not the staff of the company who are registered. That is a point which the noble Earl may like to look into.

459
I believe that there should be a closer definition of "competent" if we want to move on and ensure that standards are higher. The word "competent" is not a sufficient definition. However, as I have the noble Earl's assurance that these matters are being taken care of, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Report on competition and efficiency of gas supply industry
.—(1) The Director shall prepare annually a report showing—

(a) the state of competition in the carrying on of activities required to be licensed under section 7A of the 1986 Act;

(b) the efficiency on the part of persons authorised by or under Part I of the 1986 Act to carry on any activities and the efficient use of gas conveyed through the pipes.

(2) The Director shall send a copy of the report mentioned in subsection (1) to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament.
(3) The Director shall from time to time undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of competition in gas supply, shall prepare a document setting out his research and conclusions, shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall lay the report before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a long amendment, but pretty straightforward. I believe that we all agree that we are now entering new territory. We moved from a public monopoly to a regulated private monopoly, which introduced some degree of competition in the supply to business premises on a large scale. Now we move to essentially regulated competition. We do not have a great deal of experience of that kind of activity. There is a degree of decentralisation as regards water, but no competition to speak of. I am not certain that anyone will claim that there is competition in electricity supply.
But here I believe that there will be some competition and the question is how it will work. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that we shall have to see and I entirely agree with him. As regards consumer protection, one wonders—to use the words we used earlier—whether it will be effective. We have talked about taking account of the effect on the environment and of promoting energy efficiency. Is any of that going to happen?
Whatever one's political differences, once we have a Bill of this kind we want it to work. I want it to work and I also want to learn from what is going on. As a parliamentarian, I want to be able to participate in the learning process with a view to seeing what follows.
In the Bill as drafted, I cannot see where I can get any leverage on that point. By that I mean Members of the Committee and how we get involved in assessing what is going on in considering whether competition is working and whether consumers are being satisfied. We also want to know whether all the other good events as a result of this Bill will actually take place.
It seems to me that the easiest way of achieving that is to say that the director prepares a report along the lines I have suggested and that the report goes to the Secretary of State and then it comes before us. That gives us the very first toehold in being able to see what has been going on. That is the main point of the amendment, but it includes a
460
harder final part. I do not believe that it is unfair of me to suggest that this is a worthwhile activity. I agree that it is typically the kind of thing which economists like.
I would like to see the director examine what the benefits of competition have been and whether there have been costs. Do we have any way of assessing whether the benefits exceed whatever costs have been incurred and whether there has been a net advantage? That does not seem to me to be something that the director would be expected to do every year and that is why I merely say, "from time to time". It is a function rather more for the director than for the Secretary of State and the department. I also do not believe that it is something that can be done satisfactorily by academic outsiders because I do not believe that they can get anywhere near the kind of information that they would need.
As the noble Earl is aware, I am not a supporter of the Government, but, viewed as an experiment as to how we might do things, it is enormously interesting. As I say, the regulation of a private, competitive industry where there are energy efficiency and environmental concerns involved should be scrutinised very carefully and we should try to learn from it, particularly as we might then want to carry over those lessons to other sections of the economy.
I press this amendment with very great seriousness. Members of the Committee have a contribution to make in asking the Government to be sensitive to this kind of issue and say, "Yes, we believe that it will work out, but it is an experiment and we shall survey it in a way in which we can learn from it". I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment that has just been moved obviously has certain merits. The report for which it calls would be of considerable interest. My only hesitation is whether it would impose excessive further burdens on those who have to operate the gas industry. When such changes take place, it is always a temptation for those of us in either House to impose conditions that there shall be full and detailed reports on various aspects of the activity of the organisation concerned. One has to be careful that, in our zest for knowledge of what is going on, we do not impose too heavy a burden on those who already carry responsibility for conducting the industry.
For that reason, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there exist, in respect of other industries, comparable provisions of any sort. If they do, that means that we have some experience of the burden that they impose and of their value. I am far from dismissing the idea that this is a useful proposal. However, if we are to impose such conditions, we should hesitate to do so if they would be unique and, if they are not unique, it would be interesting to know what other industries have to carry that burden.
Lord Ezra: Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I find this a constructive and positive amendment which would be most helpful to the Committee in further consideration of this vital issue. After all, we shall spend a great deal of time on this Bill and it is not unreasonable to have the opportunity to return to some of the issues at annual intervals to see how things have gone. I entirely agree with the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and should like to know from

461
the noble Earl whether he agrees in principle with the proposition. If he thinks that the procedures proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would be too onerous, does he have any other suggestions? I think that we are entitled to ask to be kept informed at suitable intervals about how this new development is going.
Lord Skelmersdale: As has been said by noble Lords on all sides, we are certainly entitled—indeed, we expect and want—to be kept informed of the progress of competition policy from the director's viewpoint. On the other hand, I do not think that we want to be snowed under with reports on this, that or the other; nor do I think that they should he so comprehensive that they risk revealing pieces of information which are normally regarded as matters of commercial confidentiality. It therefore occurs to me to wonder whether it would not be much more practical from everybody's point of view for the annual report from the director general of Ofgas to be slightly enlarged to take account of this request which, as has been said on all sides, is perfectly reasonable.
Earl Ferrers: I never cease to admire the capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to ferret and to delve—and that is a very good thing. Having said that, however, I do not encourage him to do an undue amount of it. In tabling the amendment, he has just probed another point.
It is sometimes difficult in considering a Bill which amends parts of an existing statute, but leaves others in place, to spot when matters are already dealt with in unamended parts of the existing statute.
Section 39 of the Gas Act 1986 already requires the director to prepare an annual report on her activities during the year. That report must be laid before Parliament and it must also include a general survey of developments.
One of the director's proposed statutory duties is to exercise her functions to secure effective competition. Another is to promote efficiency and economy on the part of licensed companies and the efficient use of gas. These matters, which are specifically referred to in Amendment No. 25, must already be dealt with in the director's annual report under Section 39, which is required to cover matters falling within the scope of her functions.
That is, in fact, exactly what happens in practice. The director's latest report for 1994 includes sections on competition and on energy efficiency. It also refers to separate, more detailed Ofgas publications, on both those subjects.
Where I think that the noble Lord may well be on to a good point is that under Section 39, the director's report is to relate to what the director has actually done, but not necessarily to the progress that has been made in securing effective competition. That is the point about which the noble Lord is concerned. I am grateful to him for spotting that the existing provisions may not be sufficient to require a report on the progress of competition, which we are all agreed is necessary.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that he was concerned about imposing other new burdens and wondered what happens in other organisations. I can advise him that, like other regulators, the rail regulator has to produce an annual report.
462
If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would be good enough not to press his amendment, I shall certainly look into the matter in more detail. I propose to bring forward an appropriate government amendment to Schedule 3 to address the point. It would also provide an appropriate basis on which the progress of the pilot phases could be reported on by the director. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I warmly thank the noble Earl. As he knows, I have been feeling very rejected all afternoon and at last there has been a slight change.
I entirely accept the point about burdens which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. One of the reasons why I am delighted to be retiring in the next year as a professor is that when I started as an academic, you simply went and did your job, which was teaching young people and carrying out research. Now, academics mostly fill out forms and respond to the equivalent of regulators and people who want to write reports. I am glad to be getting away from that, although I have enjoyed my career. Therefore, I am not one who would seek to impose burdens unduly either on the firms or on the regulator. I am totally with the noble Lord on that point. He will find that I shall also be with him on other matters. I was not seeking to press the point for its own sake or because I want to see a few more trees chopped down to produce reports.
In conclusion, I must say "Thank you very much" to the noble Earl. I look forward to seeing the form of his amendment and will undoubtedly welcome it when the time comes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemptions from prohibition]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peston: I am not sure that I like the word "ferret", but my reason for seeking to oppose the Question is to convince the Committee that I have worked very hard on this Bill. I have been working hard to try to understand it. Clause 4, however, is completely beyond me and what we call the "Notes on Clauses" shed no light at all. They seem merely to repeat the obscure and opaque wording of Clause 4.
I confess to the Committee that I have a further difficulty. I hope that it does not lower me in noble Lords' esteem. Clause 4 begins by stating:
"For section 6A of the 1986 Act",
but I cannot find Section 6A in the 1986 Act. Perhaps the officials in the Box can come over to the noble Earl in due course and tell us where—
Lord Cochrane of Cults: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. Section 6A was imported into the 1986 Act by the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993.
Lord Peston: I congratulate the noble Lord. I did not understand a word that he just said because I did not even know of the existence of the 1993 Act. Is the noble Lord saying that what I call the 1986 Act is defective?
Lord Cochrane of Cults: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. No, I do not believe it to be defective. Due to the curious procedures of legislation, when an Act is amended it often assumes a form as if it had been written in that form to begin with. Perhaps I may explain a little further without wearying the Committee. There was a defect in the 1986 Act. It fell to me to introduce a Private Member's Bill in this House which subsequently amended the 1986 Act. That Act inserted into the 1986 Act Section 6A.
Lord Peston: I am indebted to the noble Lord. I understand that there is a Section 6A somewhere that one can find if one looks. However, that does not deal with my main point, which is that I do not understand a word of Clause 4. The clause is said to deal with exemptions from prohibition. First, as a practical matter, what does the clause deal with? What kinds of activities and what people may be exempt? Secondly, why is Clause 4 required to replace what I have not seen before? What is presently in the Act which requires this replacement? Have there been any exemptions in practice? The easiest way to understand what the clause is about is to have a practical example of how it has been used under the 1986 Act and how it may be used in this legislation. I raise the point because I have a duty as Opposition spokesman to scrutinise the Bill closely. I was tempted to let it go because I did not understand it. However, when one sees words like "Exemptions from prohibition" one needs a statement so that the ordinary ones among us can understand what the clause means. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his remarks about the duties that he performs. As Opposition spokesman in this House, he performs them very well. I believe that what he has said applies to all of your Lordships who have duties as legislators.
I wish to comment on a rather odd procedure in Clause 4. As I understand it, Section 6A was inserted into the 1986 Act by another Act. This provision is now to be substituted for what was then inserted into the 1986 Act. No doubt it is an ingenious and convenient procedure, but it appears rather odd. Perhaps the Minister will comment on why it is done in this way.
Earl Ferrers: I confirm what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just said about the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The noble Lord is carrying out the correct functions of the Opposition, which is to query, ferret and ask questions. I agree with my noble friend that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does so in an exemplary fashion.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Peston and telling us what the problem was. He knows
464
all about this matter, because it was his Private Member's Bill that amended the Act and caused the noble Lord, Lord Peston, such confusion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that in some respects it is not worded as clearly as the layman might wish. However, that is the way the parliamentary draftsman works.
I believe that the Committee has a useful opportunity to discuss exemption orders provided for in the clause. The purpose of the exemption provisions is to deal with what may loosely be called special cases where the licensing regime set out in other parts of the Bill is not appropriate or effective. Of the specific exemptions under scrutiny at the moment, one is a temporary exemption from the requirement for a supplier to have a shipper's licence where the shipper goes out of business pending the appointment of a new shipper. Gas supply to the customer has to be continued if that person goes out of business.
Another example is the operation of caravan parks. I hesitate to mention that for fear that my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults will interrupt me in the same way that he interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This clause affects the operation of caravan parks and similar premises where natural gas is distributed.
Another example is the operation of gas terminals. This was dealt with originally in Schedule 1. It will now be dealt with by exemption orders because of the complexity of the arrangements. A further example is the continued operation of dedicated pipelines where supply is undertaken pursuant to a licence under Section 8 of the existing legislation. A dedicated pipeline is one that goes from one place to another to supply a particular person.
It seems likely that a number of other special cases will arise where the exemption powers will have to be used. It is necessary for the clause to stand part of the Bill. Without it a number of firms would be unable to carry out their operations after the Bill is brought into force. In a number of cases it would not be possible to grant licences to regularise the business. I know that the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was to find out the object of the clause.
I mentioned in replying to the debate on Second Reading that my department was considering the appropriate scope for exemption in respect of caravan parks. The matter is a technical one. Discussions continue to find the best balance between deregulation and ensuring that in appropriate cases customers are able to choose their gas suppliers. Final exemption will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of this House and another place. There will be an opportunity to review what finally emerges.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what exemptions had been made under the 1986 Act. I do not believe that as yet any have been made. The procedure provided for in that Act is the one that we have adopted in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Peston: The noble Earl said that the power had not been used at all. Therefore, the examples that have been given are hypothetical ones in order to elucidate the position. I am indebted to the noble Earl for giving those

465
examples. At least I now understand what the clause is about. My intention was simply to seek elucidation. I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, that I have no intention of discussing caravan parks at this time or, if I have a free choice, at any other time. We shall come to that matter in due course.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I thank the noble Lord for his consideration.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Licensing of public gas transporters]
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert:
("() No licence shall be granted under this section to a public gas transporter where, in the opinion of the Director, any director of that public gas transporter has a conflict of interest in the safe, efficient and economic operation of the regulated pipeline system.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, I beg to move the amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 55A. My noble friend apologises to the Committee for not being able to move the amendment himself.
In its report in 1993 the MMC recognised the problems that arose from the various activities of British Gas being wrapped up in one company. Accordingly, it recommended that BG's trading division be divested. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade rejected that advice. I understand that his decision was probably based more on a desire to expedite the introduction of competition than outright rejection of the concept of divestment. Indeed, my right honourable friend and the regulator both confirmed that commercial separation must be implemented.
Under the new market conditions established by this 13d1, British Gas will operate in three principal areas. First, it will be the operator of the pipeline system—which is a natural monopoly business—to be called British Gas TransCo. It will then be one of the suppliers competing for the 18 million domestic customers to whom it is at present the only supplier. I understand that that will bear the name British Gas PGS (Public Gas Supplier). Finally, it will continue to operate in the highly competitive international market place and in the worldwide exploration business where it is already a major player.
While British Gas proposes to place its PGS business—the one that supplies our homes—into a separate company, there is no such proposal for TransCo. In that case, rather than place it in a separate company BG has erected a system of Chinese walls. I suggest that that system of Chinese walls—a device usually employed as a temporary measure—is not a satisfactory way of proceeding for a number of reasons. First, they do not constitute a sufficient guarantee of a level playing field between BG and other PGS companies; secondly, they will provide insufficient transparency between BG business units; thirdly, they increase the risk of dispute on the fair allocation of costs, confidentiality of data and, ultimately, the terms under which other gas companies compete with BG trading units; fourthly, the opaque corporate structure
466
will provide Ofgas with much greater problems in its policing role; fifthly, they fail to address the political problems arising from the fact that within BG there will remain a substantial monopoly operation which will ensure that the row over executive remuneration could continue indefinitely; and, lastly, they fail to recognise that British Gas is effectively steward of the national asset, the pipeline system, and that the protection of the asset must be—and be seen to be—an absolute priority.
The most sensible solution to those problems would be that offered by my honourable friend Mr. Alan Duncan in another place. His amendment, which is in the same terms as Amendment No. 55A would have provided for TransCo to be a separate wholly owned subsidiary of British Gas, dedicated to the monopoly transportation business alone. Most unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour in another place.
These amendments, which I now commend to the Committee, would go a long way towards reassuring the nation that a key national asset was properly protected, and it would confer some valuable benefits in improving the competitive gas supply regime.
First, they would give the monopoly company and its directors unambiguous objectives, free from any conflict of interest. The pipeline operation is a natural monopoly. It is a massive UK infrastructure system, worth an estimated £18 billion upon which the supply of gas to homes and factories throughout the land is dependent. Clearly, it requires directors who have a focused and clear fiduciary duty to protect, maintain and improve the regulated assets, and whose commitment to the safe maintenance and renewal of the system is not compromised in any way by conflicting loyalties to one of the supply companies.
The assets of TransCo need to be safeguarded. The public need to be reassured that the funds set aside for renewing the system, parts of which date back to Victorian times, will be there when required and not siphoned off to meet some more urgent cash demand in some other part of British Gas's business.
Secondly, these amendments would assist in the ring-fencing of the TransCo operation for the benefit of the regulator, Ofgas. The more clearly that TransCo is delineated as a separate operating company, the easier it will be to define the area of responsibility for Ofgas. I believe that in limiting the role of the regulator to that part of the business which is by nature a monopoly we would help the regulator to be clearly focused on the area of gas supply which is not subject to the disciplines of competition and where regulation has a clear role to play.
Thirdly, these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 55A, would allow clear external judgment to be made on the company's performance. Indeed, in the present climate it would deliver one very important benefit. The row about the pay of utility directors arises in part because there is a public perception that they are just running the same gas boards and electricity boards of old, but paying themselves 10 times as much. If the monopoly part of the business (where risks are inevitably less than in the competitive area) were ring-fenced there could be legitimate public scrutiny of the directors' pay leaving the level of executive pay of the risk-taking businesses entirely, and properly, a

467
matter for the shareholders alone. Finally, they would provide a safeguard to ensure the permanent UK ownership and control of TransCo's monopoly assets.
In conclusion, I wish to make it plain that there is no ulterior motive in these amendments to force British Gas against its will to divest itself of its key asset. I suspect that the company raises the spectre of divestment largely to frighten those who believe in the concept of national champions and do not want British Gas's status as one such damaged. Surely, though, there can be no danger to British Gas in applying to TransCo the same arrangements as it is applying to PGS. I believe these amendments do make a great deal of sense, and would not damage British Gas's prospects. I hope that they will find favour with my noble friend. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendments. Having listened to my noble friend, I understand that he is suggesting that TransCo be made a separate entity. I attended the all-party meeting we had with the chairman and chief executive of British Gas. I went to that meeting under the impression that it would be a good thing to have TransCo as an entirely separate company. I put that point at the meeting, and I was completely satisfied by the answer I received that it would not be a good thing. At the time I thought that it was parallel to the electricity national grid. I have followed the matter up since and found that it is not a parallel. Therefore I oppose the amendments.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for speaking to the amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade. We too believe that the amendments are not necessary to ensure that TransCo is operated on a completely separate basis from British Gas's supply and shipping businesses. That is already provided for.
Rigorous procedural requirements are in place to ensure that completely separate and transparent accounts are produced for British Gas TransCo, its component businesses, and those parts of British Gas which provide services to both TransCo and to trading businesses. Those requirements are stricter than those applicable to a subsidiary company's statutory accounts.
There are very stringent safeguards in place within British Gas to ensure that there is no improper contact between the arms of British Gas's operations. There are also licence restrictions on cross-subsidy between TransCo and the BG trading businesses.
Those arrangements are intended to ensure that there is a level playing field—I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers will forgive me for using those words—for shippers, including those connected to British Gas, supervised by Ofgas.
The arrangements have only recently been put in place (in February this year) and should be given a chance to work before being written off as insufficient. If they prove in practice not to be effective, there is a mechanism in place in the Bill to remedy that.
468
The proposed new Section 36A of the Gas Act 1986 will give the director powers to make references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If, following a proper investigation of the matter, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that the rules had been put in place and were operating, or might be expected to operate, against the public interest, the commission could recommend divestment, a separate subsidiary, or whatever other remedy it thought appropriate.
We believe that it is right for a private company to be given a choice as to how to respond to the Bill's requirement for separate supply/shipping and transportation licence holders. I hope that explains the Government's position and give reassurance to my noble friend.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said, because, like my noble friend Lady Gardner, I was attracted originally to the idea of a separate company within British Gas or TransCo. I am sure that the Committee is agreed that British Gas should remain as owners and controllers of TransCo, not least because of the importance it gives to British Gas in its exploration and marketing overseas. That was something I mentioned on Second Reading, and believe to be of immense importance to UK Limited.
I listened to what my noble friend Lord Inglewood said in reply. I believe that he made out a convincing case for letting the situation evolve as it has been arranged at the moment. We are, after all, interfering with a private company, something of which I do not approve in principle, but having made that interference, it is right to let it decide which way matters should evolve.
A great deal of restructuring within British Gas has been done to make for the best possible separation, and, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, that has led to strict rules that will be heavily policed. Of course there is the fall back, and I hope that, given what was said, my noble friend Lord Brabazon will think that the Government and British Gas have it about right at the moment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I listened carefully to the debate which my noble friend's amendment engendered, and I am grateful to those who spoke in it. Obviously, my noble friend Lord Wade will wish to read what has been said. The amendment was intended only as a probing amendment to ascertain the views of Members of the Committee. I am sorry that Members opposite had nothing to say about it, but no doubt they have been thinking about it nevertheless. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: This may be a convenient moment on which to conclude this part of the Bill. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved according, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order authorises expenditure of £3,437 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. This is in addition to the sum of £2,705 million voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £6,142 million, an increase of 4.4 per cent. on 1994–95. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess Vote in 1993–94.
I know that your Lordships continue to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland and I would like to say a few words about the local economic situation before turning to the contents of the Estimates. Both official data and survey evidence show a marked improvement in the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy and future prospects are now looking very optimistic.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate above the national average. Over the past five years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased output by 14.3 per cent. compared to a 0.1 per cent. rise nationally. Over a similar timescale there has been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom figures. Over the period from 1991–92, compared to 1993–94, export sales from Northern Ireland grew by 24 per cent. significantly outperforming growth in exports in the UK of 18 per cent. The retail sector in Northern Ireland is booming. For example, Sainsbury is setting up shop in Northern Ireland for the first time with the planned opening of seven stores throughout the Province. In addition, a number of existing retail chain stores have announced expansion plans for Northern Ireland. These investments have the potential to create hundreds of jobs.
In the first five months of 1995 there were a total of 193,426 inquiries to tourist board offices in Northern Ireland, a splendid increase of 72.5 per cent. over the same period in 1994. There is a very favourable outlook for the tourism sector in Northern Ireland.
At March 1995 the seasonally adjusted number of employees in employment in the Province stood at 566,810, the best ever March figure. In addition, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent. is at its lowest level for 13 years.
All of this is very welcome news for the people of Northern Ireland and I am confident that the prospects and performance of the economy will continue to improve as the peace process becomes embedded. I continue to believe that the best cement for peace is jobs.
I now turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the Estimates booklet. All the figures are of course in pounds sterling. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture Votes amounts to some £155 million. In
470
Vote 1, some £21 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures. In addition to various market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the Vote includes some £6 million for grants for capital and other farm improvements and £14 million is for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.
Vote 2 includes £133 million for regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for agri-food development and for scientific and veterinary services; £38 million for farm support, environmental areas, fisheries and forestry services; and £5 million for the rural development programme.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 1, some £135 million is for the Industrial Development Board. Against a background of peace the board will increase its activities to attract firms to set up and expand in Northern Ireland. The board has set itself a target of securing 20 inward investment projects involving some 4,500 jobs during the current year.
In Vote 2, £33 million is for the local enterprise development unit and £16 million is for the industrial research and technology unit. Elsewhere in the Vote, £13.6 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
In Vote 3, £203 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This includes £77 million for the new jobskills training programme and £55 million for the action for community employment programme, which includes £1.3 million for the community work programme pilot. Eighteen million pounds is to assist companies improve their competitiveness through structured training and development of their workforce and by providing future managers with the skills and experience they require to succeed.
I now turn to the Estimates for the Department of the Environment, where £180 million in Vote 1 is for roads, transport and ports. This includes some £150 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system.
Vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £203 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account the total resources available for housing will be some £593 million. This is £20 million more than in 1994–95 and will enable us to build on the progress which has been made in recent years.
In Vote 3, gross expenditure on water and sewerage services is estimated at £202 million. Ninety-four million pounds is for capital expenditure and some £108 million is for operational and maintenance purposes.
In Vote 4, £142 million is for environmental services, including some £35 million for urban regeneration measures. These continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need and have helped secure a welcome improvement to many areas of Northern Ireland.
The Estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,380 million, an increase of 4.3 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £842 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase

471
of £39 million over 1994–95. This includes £794 million for schools and colleges of further education and will help maintain the pupil/teacher ratio at present levels. Also included is some £48 million for libraries, youth services and administration, and £41 million for boards' capital projects. One hundred and forty-three million pounds is for voluntary schools and some £15 million is for integrated schools. There are now 23 integrated schools in operation with over 4,700 pupils in attendance. Approval has been given for four further integrated schools from September 1995, with another one in the pipeline.
Vote 2 includes £119 million for universities, £124 million for student support, £16 million for arts and museums and £3 million for community relations.
In the Department of Health and Social Services, Vote 1 includes £1,380 million for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts and family health services. That is an increase of 5.6 per cent. on last year.
In Vote 3 gross provision of some £224 million is for the department's administration and other costs. That includes £122 million for the Social Security Agency, £19 million for the Child Support Agency and £13 million for the Health and Personal Social Services Management Executive.
In Vote 4 £ 1,463 million is for a range of social security benefits, an increase of 5.8 per cent. on last year. In Vote 5, £406 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, housing benefit, the Social Fund and payments to the National Insurance fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel. Within Votes 1 and 3, some £5.6 million is for the community relations programme. Taken together with the expenditure by the Department of Education, total spending on the community relations programme will be some £8.7 million and reflects the importance which government continue to attach to that area.
I hope that that short summary of the main components of the Estimates is helpful to your Lordships. This is a very special time in Northern Ireland. We need to build on the opportunities that the new climate brings to us and ensure that the benefits of the ceasefires are shared by everyone in the community. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's presentation of the order: Indeed, I enjoyed hearing the good news that she was able to give us about the economy. I work in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland and I can support everything that the Minister said. The economy is in good shape; it is trying very hard; and I am sure that it will do even better.
However, I wonder whether the Minister declared her interest. I say that because the noble Baroness is the Minister for the economy and also the Minister for agriculture. Those are two very big jobs. I do not know how she manages them both; but I can tell your Lordships
472
that she does, and very well too. I am quite certain that any questions that I ask tonight will not add to her workload, which is something that I would not wish to do. There are so many items in the public expenditure between the different departments that one could talk about them and discuss them all night, but in the short time at my disposal I shall just speak about a few of them.
I do not believe that the Minister mentioned this, but, in addition to the funds allocated, I understand that funds have recently been redirected from the security forces as a result of the ceasefire. That is very welcome and I hope that that reduction in security costs can be carried out carefully and sensibly so as not to cause undue hardship to those who have given so much to the service over many years. I understand that about £50 million will be released this year and £60 million next year. That additional money will be very welcome and will be used to assist health, education, housing and roads.
In Northern Ireland we have long been fortunate in having an excellent health service with very high standards, but there is a widespread feeling that the cost and complexity of administration is getting out of hand and that it is getting worse rather than better. The cost of administration above hospital level has recently been estimated at £80 million, which seems quite an absurd amount for the Province with 1.6 million people.
I believe that the health service administration needs a radical examination and that whole layers of administration could be cut out. That review should be carried out by an independent outside consultant. I believe that the Minister conducted an internal review about 18 months ago, but much more than that is required. Just as an example, perhaps I may point out that it is almost impossible to get decisions on policy matters. However, I must temper that by saying that the recent decision to undertake modernisation of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast is very welcome and, indeed, essential.
In education there is urgent need for money to repair and renovate school buildings, some of which are in a very bad state of repair. On the other hand, there are regular reports on the move to develop a university on the Springvale site in west Belfast. Perhaps the pressure comes from academics who wish to extend their empires. However, it would be very costly and I wonder whether it would be worth while. Quite apart from the cost, I cannot believe that a university would be right for west Belfast where the educational and training needs are at a lower level. There is great need in that area for vocational and technical training, perhaps extending at the top level to polytech but not university standard. I hope that good sense will prevail.
So far there has been no peace dividend for the construction industry in Northern Ireland. There is less work in hand than there has been for years. There has been a serious and substantial drop in output, activity and employment. The matter has been referred to in another place in recent months.
Investment in construction is a very cost-efficient method of creating jobs. At this particular point in the peace process, job creation is vitally important. I understand that there are many projects ready to go ahead but that there has been no money for them. Can the Minister now identify the major public sector

473
construction contracts that will be brought forward in the current year? That information will be most helpful to the construction industry.
Roads have been a matter for concern because the general road system, especially the second class roads, is deteriorating. I hope that the money that is being allocated tonight will be sufficient to improve the maintenance.
The Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland works hard. It gives an excellent service to the farming and food industry and, in general, its work is to be commended. However, I must mention the Sub Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development, known as SPARD. That scheme offers a rate of grant of 30 per cent. payable for capital items on the farm designed to improve competitiveness and to enhance the environment. It also includes expenditure to combat pollution. The scheme, with 70 per cent. paid by the landowner, is a highly efficient mechanism to channel resources into localised jobs. The money will be spent on new buildings, culverts, concrete structures, fencing and restoration. These are high labour content items which will create or underpin localised jobs and, therefore, rural prosperity. As a form of peace dividend for farmers, it is hard to imagine anything better.
The scheme was open for applications in November 1994, but was suspended on 24th March this year when a total of 11,000 applications had been received. It was closed because the department had insufficient funds to meet many of those applications. I understand the budget for the SPARD project is £8.5 million this year, with £10 million in subsequent years. Schemes of this sort are time-sensitive as farmers must have the will and the cash available. They may have the will and the cash now, but next year things may have changed and they could either not have the will or the money. In view of the reallocation of funds presently being made, surely the extra few million pounds required could be found to support this excellent scheme for rural employment and rural development.
The Northern Ireland fishing fleet is in difficulties. In common with fishing fleets elsewhere in the UK, the quotas have been reduced. The white fish quota has been reduced for the Northern Ireland fleet and pressure is now on prawns because white fish trawlers have moved across to prawns and in order to be economic they are using two nets. Unfortunately that puts the traditional prawn boats, which only use one net, at a disadvantage. Prawn prices have recently been low due to heavy landings and some owners of prawn trawlers want to get out. There is a belief that the next tranche of decommissioning will exclude prawn trawlers. As the whole object of decommissioning is to reduce the size of our fleets, surely the prawn boat owners should also have the opportunity to get out if they wish.
The cost of electricity is causing great concern in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps the biggest cloud on our horizon, both on the domestic and the industrial fronts. For domestic users the cost of electricity is presently about 19 per cent. above the GB average. That difference will widen when the 8 per cent. levy is removed in Great Britain. By the end of next year Northern Ireland could be at a 30 per cent. disadvantage compared with GB householders. Those figures were given in evidence to the
474
Northern Ireland special affairs committee in another place by the chairman of the Northern Ireland consumer committee for electricity.
For industrial users it is more difficult to generalise because of the many different tariffs and forms of contract, but comparisons have been made between plants in Northern Ireland and almost exactly similar plants in Great Britain. When assistance from the trust fund ceases at the end of this year the difference will vary from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. and that will get worse because the use of systems charges will increase by inflation plus 3.5 per cent. In Great Britain they increase by inflation less 2 per cent. This means that in five or six years the 30 per cent. difference will be increased to about 50 per cent. greater cost in Northern Ireland.
The main reason for the higher cost in Northern Ireland is because the contracts for purchase of the generating stations guarantee payment of all costs plus profit except fuel against making plant available. Most of these contracts extend until the year 2010. The consequence of this is that no new generator, however efficient, will reduce unit costs because the fixed costs of the present generators have to be paid even if no power is taken. An additional reason is that flue treatment costs, which in Great Britain are borne by the generators, are to be paid for by the consumer in Northern Ireland. Next year Ballylumford will convert to gas and, later, desulphurisation equipment will be fitted at Kilroot. Large sums are involved, probably in excess of £100 million, all of which will add to the cost of a unit of electricity. The consequence of these matters, plus the need to offer a high rate of return in the shares of NIE, has resulted in the profit formula for Northern Ireland Electricity being much more generous than for other regional electricity companies in Great Britain.
The Office of Electricity Regulation has a duty to promote competition in generation and supply and to protect the interests of consumers. Although competition is theoretically possible in 1996, the director general himself has admitted that this will have no material effect on prices until well into the next century. The regulator has power to review the distribution charges levied by Northern Ireland Electricity which at present are permitted to increase by inflation plus 3.5 per cent. If he could instead reduce them by one and a half times inflation each and every year, it would barely stabilise prices. This is because the generating costs which represent 60 per cent. of the total charges are fixed by contract which the regulator has no power to change. In short the director general cannot do his job; he cannot protect the interests of consumers.
The declared objective of privatisation was to improve efficiency, improve competition and reduce the cost to the consumer. Unfortunately the way the service has been privatised has resulted in increasing the cost to the consumer. Efficiency gains have been made by the generators but the fixed form of contract means that efficiency gains are not passed on to the consumer. Domestic users and industry are faced with ever higher costs of electricity compared with those on the mainland and most of this is unfortunately a direct result of government approved contracts.

475
The steadily increasing costs of electricity compared with those in Great Britain will seriously affect householders, existing industry and its competitiveness, and the decision of companies thinking of coming to Northern Ireland. Large sums of money will be involved. I have not been able to calculate that, but I know that £100 million would not go far to meet this adverse difference. This important matter is presently being investigated by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place. I have no doubt that its findings will be in line with what I have described. I will not press the Minister for an answer to this whole situation this evening because it does not appear that the Government have yet faced the facts or have considered what should be done about this serious handicap to industry. I sincerely hope that some straight thinking and appropriate action will develop in the next few months.
When speaking of spending perhaps I may refer to grants which will be made to Northern Ireland by the European Union under the terms of the European initiative for peace and reconciliation. I hope that some of that money will be spent in Northern Ireland. I believe that some community groups are coming together with the intention of managing this expenditure on behalf of the European Union. Is that the proper way, I wonder, to manage such funds? Should not local councils be involved? After all, we want and need to build up the democratic process in Northern Ireland. I have taken rather a long time but there were many matters to cover and there were many more that I would like to have covered. However, the House will be spared that.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear explanation of today's order. The context of our debate is one of ceasefires continuing through the marching season, and despite various difficulties. The ending of shootings and explosions has enabled people to enjoy normal life, sometimes for the first time. It is encouraging tourism and investment and we very much welcome the economic improvements which the noble Baroness mentioned earlier.
I am glad to say there has also been an increase in dialogue between the two main traditions. I particularly welcome moves towards proportionality and power sharing within Belfast City Council and I hope that these will make further progress.
One of the main obstacles to real peace is the continuance of intimidation and punishment beatings, all of which were much mentioned in the earlier debate in your Lordships' House on emergency legislation. My hope is that the paramilitaries and related parties will sit down and discuss the details of future policing within so-called hard-line areas. Those groups may have many useful ideas to contribute and I feel that such a move would be a major confidence-building measure in itself.
So far, there does not seem to be much progress towards the start of negotiations for an overall political settlement. The issues are complex and we must be patient. However, no task is more urgent than to find an acceptable replacement for direct rule and a means for
476
dispensing with emergency law and special courts. Equally important is the search for ways in which the whole society in Northern Ireland may become demilitarised. Those processes can be assisted powerfully by many different ideas and groups. I trust that there will be maximum consultation and participation by the public.
My friend Mr. David Bleakley, who has relevant experience as a trade unionist, former Minister for community relations and general secretary of the Irish Council of Churches, in a recently published book called for a movement proclaiming "Ulster says yes". By that he meant yes to consent; yes to constructive negotiations; and yes to conflict resolution. I trust that there will be a groundswell of public opinion in such a positive direction.
At the same time, it is necessary to appreciate the cultural differences which distinguish the Protestant and Catholic approaches to serious problems. By and large, Protestants like to advance step by step and case by case, respecting individual conscience. On the other hand, Catholics often prefer to proceed from the general to the particular. They tend to go for the framework first before filling in the details. Those mental and cultural differences are important and we need to remember that the majority of the population has a Protestant background.
Earlier this year—I think it was in January—I suggested to the Secretary of State that an interim elected assembly might be a useful and helpful measure in view of the likely length of the main trilateral negotiations. Such an assembly could be partly directly elected and partly chosen from party lists. In that way, new talent could be drawn in both for consultation and so that new entrants might gain political and administrative experience. I very much hope that that idea will not be discarded entirely. Some kind of transitional period is likely to be necessary in any event between full direct rule and any new agreed system. An assembly could help to bridge that gap.
It is for consideration whether an independent truth commission could be helpful, particularly in disentangling various disputed and unresolved injuries and deaths which still cause much anguish. There is, of course, a South African parallel for such an inquiry.
The release of prisoners whose offences have been largely politically motivated is another important and difficult matter. As president of NIACRO, I say only that I believe that the research published recently by that organisation into the procedures adopted by other countries which have experienced serious internal conflict has been an aid to serious discussion of the issues involved.
Speaking personally, I urge the Government to remove the anomaly whereby those sentenced since March 1989 have a lower rate of remission compared with those sentenced before that date. I would counsel against the premature release of Private Clegg and I should like to emphasise that all releases should be accompanied by measures which recognise the sufferings of victims of violence and which show that those sufferings have not been in vain.
I conclude by stating that ceasefires and the search for political solutions pose a real challenge to the Churches, in particular in Northern Ireland. We all know that

477
relationships at the level of archbishops, cardinals and moderators are good and friendly. But I ask whether those friendships are being translated into the breaking down of long-standing barriers at parish and local community level. Is the present moment seen as an opportunity for new kinds of dialogue and local co-operation? For many years now voluntary ecumenical groups, of which PACE, Corrymeela, Cornerstone and Rostrevor are perhaps the best known, have shown how people of different traditions can live and work together for common purposes. I wonder whether that experience has been analysed and digested fully. Will it now be applied at all levels of the traditional church structures? I trust that those structures will, from now on, become components and active builders of the solution which is so greatly desired.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I wish to speak on one or two subjects that have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness. I was in Belfast recently and I had discussions with various groups. They were all impressing upon me the importance of community relations organisations in Northern Ireland because throughout the past number of years they have been indispensable in trying to create the atmosphere in which the ceasefire has eventually arrived. Whatever increase there may have been in expenditure, that has been money well spent. From what I have heard, and what I know prior to my arrival in this House, since its inception, the Community Relations Council has carried out remarkable work in a very dangerous atmosphere.
The noble Baroness mentioned Sainsbury's. I am sure that she is aware of the debate which took place yesterday evening at the other end of this building. Everyone in Northern Ireland welcomes investment there. We are only too well aware that with the ceasefire in operation we may be more hopeful of attracting more investment.
The announcement that Sainsbury's is set to open seven or possibly 12 stores is to be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland. But the way in which the announcement was made has caused some controversy. There are stores in Northern Ireland which have operated in very difficult circumstances for the past 25 years. Many of those stores have been blown up repeatedly and put out of business and it has taken a great deal of courage to start them up again.
Many of those have made applications in relation to certain sites in order to expand their businesses and were told by the planning authorities that those sites were unsuitable; that they were for recreational purposes; and that they were not to he used for the beginnings of a retail business. An announcement is then made by the Sainsbury organisation that it is to open its retail outlets on the very sites for which planning permission had been refused to local retailers. Naturally that has caused great concern. Deputations were here yesterday and today and I questioned them very closely. I certainly told them that I would not be party to trying to prevent inward investment. But they say that they simply ask that if planning permission is to be given to a retailer, it should he given whether such investment be home based or inward investment.
478
The Sainsbury organisation has not been in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years. I do not believe that it would ask for any great favours. I reinforce what has been said by elected representatives on the other side who are much more closely involved with the people in Northern Ireland and with that problem: that no undue or privileged treatment be given to organisations in order to set up retail outlets in Northern Ireland to the disadvantage of those who have been in Northern Ireland and have made applications on planning over numbers of years. There should be a level playing field for everyone.
I realise that the issue is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the noble Baroness. Some would say that it is for the Department of the Environment. However, one cannot isolate the environment from the whole economic approach or atmosphere in Northern Ireland.
I urge the noble Baroness to take account of what was said at the other end of the building. All that the home bred retailers want is a fair allocation of planning permissions when those are necessary to open up such outlets.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Perhaps I may refer to the Sainsbury's investment. It is obviously extremely welcome. It is a symbol of the greater peace and tranquillity that now obtains in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may add to the warning that the noble Lord gave. As the noble Baroness will be aware, at the very moment that her colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment seeks to ensure that not all supermarket development is out of town and to recreate a sense of community by making sure that the high streets are revived, it would be a shame if the whole of the Sainsbury's investment in Northern Ireland went into large, new shopping centres out of town and did not contribute to what is most needed—the re-creation of many run-down urban areas.
On the larger issues which the noble Baroness so ably presented, I was pleased that she began with the larger macroeconomic situation in Northern Ireland because there is much good news, and it is right to emphasise it. Potentially there is a virtuous circle of good news leading to further investment leading to greater confidence and greater economic activity.
However, although the figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland have dropped by 10,000 in the past 12 months, we should remember that they still stand at 88,700. As a proportion of population in the United Kingdom, it is the worst figure. I know that the noble Baroness will share our concern that within that figure 57 per cent. of claimants of unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for more than one year. In other words, they are long-term unemployed. Of those, one in five have been unemployed for over five years. In fact, if one considers Northern Ireland as a whole, one in five of Northern Ireland households claims social security benefit compared with about one in eight in the United Kingdom as a whole.
There are no grounds whatever for complacency. I do not imply that that is the case as regards the Government. The question is this. What can we do to achieve better

479
organic growth, not just to ensure that the inward flow of investment continues as a spin off of the ceasefire? How can we create significantly extra economic activity in Northern Ireland? For instance, so long as we discuss these appropriation orders in this House—and before long may they be discussed in a devolved power-sharing assembly in Northern Ireland—it would be wonderful to see a reverse in the trend in unemployment so that a greater percentage of the appropriation could then go on trade, industry, training and infrastructure, and less on social security.
It is worth recording that social security accounts for 32.5 per cent. of the total appropriation that we are considering. The situation is not getting better. In 1987–88 the figure was 31 per cent. If anything, the position is slightly worse. The subsidy, the subvention that every household in mainland Great Britain gives to Northern Ireland goes to social security to an enormous extent.
I very much support the Action for Community Employment Scheme. It has produced a reduction in unemployment. However, I was curious that in Vote 2 on page 4 there is a reduction in funding for training programmes, management and enterprise education. I should have thought that a skilled workforce has never been more crucial. When the noble Baroness responds, I should be grateful if she will tell us why the total estimate budget of the IBD—which has doubled its own job creation target to 4,500 in 1995–96—is being cut from £149 million to £134.5 million?
As regards the relative attractiveness of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for investment, I shall be interested in the noble Baroness's comments on this matter. In this new, improved atmosphere, in some ways Northern Ireland is in danger of losing out to the Republic of Ireland as regards inward investment. Just this month Northern Ireland lost 1,500 jobs to the republic. The sum of £21 million was invested by Seagate Technology in Tipperary, rather than in Derry, as expected, where the company already employs 350 people. Between 1980 and 1993, the republic gained an extraordinary achievement: 100,000 manufacturing jobs. That is 10 times the number that we have created in Northern Ireland.
At present the Republic of Ireland, which has by any measure a small population, is attracting 23 per cent. of all new American investment into Europe. People have stated that one of the reasons for that differential attraction is taxation. Corporation tax for Northern Ireland is 33 per cent. for companies with taxable profits of more than £1.5 million. As we know, the republic has a super competitive rate of 10 per cent. It is not an easy problem to solve. I do not have an easy solution. However, I am most interested to hear the Minister's comments because it would be a great tragedy if, in the United States, Japan, Korea and in other parts of the world where the good news about peace in Ireland is being heard, investment heads only towards the south.
That brings me to the question of what strategy there is to co-ordinate decision-making between government departments regarding development of business opportunities with the republic. The noble Baroness may recall that when we discussed the appropriation order in March, on these Benches we suggested that there might
480
be more North-South co-operation on telecommunication and tourism. I am delighted to see that there is a pilot scheme for concessionary telecommunication tariffs now planned between Dublin and Belfast. I am delighted too, by the six new joint marketing projects between the board in the republic and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question on roads. She referred to the vast increase of tourism coming to Northern Ireland. It is exciting. When developing the infrastructure is so vital for both inward investment, economic development and tourism, I wonder why the estimates for expenditure on roads and transport services are down from £189 million to £180 million. That comes at a time when freight traffic on Northern Ireland roads is growing by 7 per cent. per annum as a result of the activity that she described. On the Belfast-Dublin route, it is growing by 20 per cent. a year—and high time too. There is an overall road maintenance backlog of £58 million, and many of the major thoroughfares in Northern Ireland date from the 1960s, as we all know.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I should like to raise briefly the question of integrated education. There is no mention of integrated education in the order. That is not of itself surprising, but there has been no other indication from the department about how much planned expenditure there will be in that area. Yet in February this year, the Minister's colleague, the right honourable Michael Ancram, said,
"Integrated education has an important role to play in creating better understanding and tolerance in Northern Ireland".
I find the Government's reticence on funding a bit of a problem, given that there is still less than 2 per cent. of the school population at integrated schools.
I very much enjoyed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. Incidentally, I agree with what the noble Lord said about electricity prices in Northern Ireland. At a time when the profitability of Northern Ireland Electricity has gone up by 15 per cent., it does not seem that consumers and industry there are getting a particularly good deal. I did not agree with the noble Lord on the matter of the Springvale peace line campus. Potentially, it is a very imaginative concept. As has been the case at Coleraine, it could represent a tremendous impetus for local employment. The effect of the Coleraine campus, with a student population of 4,500 is that it has generated over 1,000 jobs on campus, 900 of them full-time. Wellworths, the food and clothes retailer said that, if there is a Springvale campus, it will create 120 jobs in a new West Belfast supermarket. Given that Northern Ireland has a need for more student places at the tertiary level, it would be an imaginative concept to go ahead with Springvale. Although the capital cost is considerable, it has been estimated that the annual running cost would be of the order of some £6 million a year to the Northern Ireland Department of Education. When the noble Baroness and I last addressed this subject across the Floor of the House, I believe she expected her right honourable friend to reach some sort of conclusion by the end of April. We have still heard nothing, and it is now nearly the end of June. It would be most interesting to hear the Government's thinking on that issue.

481
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and by the Minister in her opening remarks, to community programmes. I was delighted to see the increase in allocation to community programmes. The importance of community work, both in the run-up to the ceasefire and now in cementing and building the peace, cannot be over-estimated. There are great social problems in Northern Ireland. Many are results of the long years of savage tension. For instance, levels of sickness in West Belfast are at their worst for 25 years. There is unemployment of 40 per cent. on the Shankill and Falls Roads. Anything that helps community work is welcome. We on these Benches very much welcome the Interface Project of the Community Relations Council, which involves work with communities on the peace lines.
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government agree with Jacques Santer's comment in relation to the £240 million peace package; namely, that European funds are 100 per cent. additional: the UK and Irish funds should be additional as well? It would be very good to receive that confirmation.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is unavoidably absent. Needless to say, I thank the Minister very much for explaining with her usual clarity the terms of this order and for drawing attention to its main components.
Perhaps I may begin by referring to a recent visit that I made as a member of Committee D of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body to the city of Londonderry—or, to express a different culture, Derry. It was some years since I had last been to that proud city. Speaking to people in the great Guildhall and to eager teachers and students, I had the clear impression that thinking was on the move and that positive and hopeful efforts were being made to work together to encourage community development at grass roots level.
Clearly, the ceasefire has opened up an opportunity to take a fundamental look at the problems of the Province and the policies and programmes that are being implemented to address them. As the Minister and other noble Lords know well, this has been a theme of a number of valuable conferences on Northern Ireland during the past six months.
Unemployment is one of the two main elements at the heart of the problem. Therefore, reducing unemployment must also be at the heart of the solution. On this, I agree with other speakers this evening: the Minister was most encouraging. A week ago the noble Baroness announced the unemployment figures for May. They show that unemployment fell for the eleventh consecutive month. I follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about hardcore unemployment, and I touch upon that. I thought that the most encouraging part of the Minister's statement was her confirmation that the number of long-term unemployed—those out of work for more than a year—was falling, albeit only by a very small reduction. I fully share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about long-term unemployment. Does the Minister have any firm grounds for believing that the hardcore long-term unemployed can be halved by the year 2000? After all, we want opportunities for all, and in both communities.
482
In her press statement, repeated this evening, on the May unemployment figures, the Minister warned against the temptation of complacency and called on Northern Ireland to redouble its efforts. A week ago in Paris she spoke of the need for the Province "to aim high". I am all for optimism. Can the Minister be a little more specific about those aims? What are the detailed aims of policy over the next five years or so; and what are the timescales for achieving those objectives? Will she also indicate the provisions in the draft order that are geared in particular to achieving those aims? It was Sir George Quigley, the chief executive of Ulster Bank and chairman of the Economic Council, who recently said:
"1 would like to see us indicate what we want to achieve by the year 2000, since it may help to prevent our becoming the prisoners of past policy assumptions".
Those words are the source of my question.
It needs no words from these Benches to remind the House that Northern Ireland is on the westernmost limit of the British Isles and at the farthest point from the industrial and business centres of the European Union. Obviously, that does not come without its disadvantages. Of course, looking at it the other way round, Northern Ireland is on the doorstep of the Union. But it has been said that the doorstep can be very draughty. We therefore welcome very much those European initiatives that have been specially designed to meet some of the conditions that are unique to Northern Ireland.
As I understand the case of the Institute of Directors (and I may have misunderstood it), there may be some grounds for concern about the loans structure of the European Investment Bank. We have had experience in Wales of the European Investment Bank. I believe that the Institute of Directors was referring to the interest subsidies and loan guarantees structure of the bank. Can the Minister say whether there is anything in that complaint? Is this matter being explored by her department? Will she also comment as to whether more could be done in this direction by the Northern Ireland financial institutions themselves?
The Minister attended the important Washington Conference on Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland. Is her department in a position by now to make a preliminary judgment about the success of that conference? How successful will it be in attracting innovative American firms to the Province, in addition to the 20 inward investment projects to which she referred in her opening speech?
In an article published in the Belfast Telegraph on 23rd May, the eve of the Washington conference, the noble Baroness listed the benefits which Northern Ireland offered to American firms. In the list there appeared "our education". There are two uncomfortable questions that I want to raise about education. It has been known for a long time that far too many young people in Northern Ireland leave school poorly equipped with vocational skills. This was roughly touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, as I understood him. The Department of Education has for many years been in trouble over this failure. Some of us are, I fear, puzzled by the inability of the department to tackle the problem effectively.

483
That leads me to the second issue. If, as we expect and earnestly hope, the ceasefire leads to a lasting peace, we understand that some 12,000 people now employed in the security services will become redundant during the next few years and up to 1,000 prisoners will be released. A very high percentage of those people will require retraining. Is there not a great risk that retraining facilities will not be there? What will be the result if they are not in place? Perhaps the Minister can meet some of our concerns by identifying those provisions in the order which are commensurate with those needs.
I am sure that the Northern Ireland Ministers are fully conscious of those problems. All the same, I wish to place on the record that there is a growing conviction in Northern Ireland—it is not confined to the well documented concerns of the leaders of the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Presbyterians and of the Defenders of the South Eastern Education Board—that there may be deep-rooted problems of management within the Department of Education and that public confidence in it is less than it used to be. In fact, that is reinforced to some degree by the need for the department to obtain authority, in the first item of this order, for the excess Vote of 1993–94. The first item stands in splendid isolation in Part I of Schedule 1. Unless I missed the Minister's words, we did not receive a word of explanation for that item.
The explanation given by the department is that that calculation, which is in excess of £1,000, arose out of a miscalculation "prepared by inexperienced staff'. Again, that is an indication that all may not be well in that department.
Perhaps I may also venture to refer to the management of one part of the Minister's own department: the Department of Economic Development. Clearly, not a word of criticism is levelled at the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. I have a feeling that if she had been in her post at the time, the concerns would not have arisen at all.
Noble Lords will recall that in both Houses of Parliament there was united and strong opposition to the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity industry. Yet, at all times, the Department of Economic Development was deaf and blind to all the arguments.
However, now we have before us the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. It is very interesting to re-read the debates on the privatisation of the electricity industry in the light of the contents of that report. It came as news to me that it was the department's assessment from the outset that major benefits were unlikely to become available for a considerable period of time. It was also news that there had not been a proper valuation of the generating stations and that one of the department's own advisers—a well-paid adviser—in the sale of the generating stations, oddly, was also providing advice to one of the companies tendering for the generating stations. That names but three of the 10 mischiefs that are highlighted in the report. Clearly, the report raises many doubts about the management of one part of the department during the relevant period.
484
I come to the central issue of the cost of electricity for the Northern Ireland consumer. It remains too high. It is, as usual, significantly higher than for the consumer in parts of the mainland. I should like to ask a question of the Minister that has not been asked this evening. Will she be good enough to confirm that I have correctly understood, from evidence that she gave to the Northern Ireland Select Committee a day or two ago, that the Government have now decided in principle that they will subsidise the costs of generating electricity in Northern Ireland under specified conditions? If I have that right, can she give details of the arrangement and of the specified conditions?
We are also aware that the leaders of the voluntary and community organisations—chief among them the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Co-operative Movement and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions—are pressing for greater partnership between the private sector, the public sector and the voluntary agencies. It is important that their role is fully recognised and supported by the Government.
Action on the reduction of social inequality, action to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots within both communities and the promotion of co-operation is, in the opinion of many people, of equal importance to the creation of jobs. I may mention that that is a specific area of anxiety to my noble friend Lord Blease of Cromac, who has always been concerned for both communities. That concern always showed in his contributions, which we have greatly missed in these debates over the past year or so.
Mentioning the noble Lord, Lord Blease, leads me naturally to my next point; namely, the profound concern of the Council for the Homeless that the problem of homelessness is worsening in Northern Ireland. Its fear is that future plans will inevitably worsen the position. I must say to the Minister that, if the report is reliable, the position seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory. Up to now there has not been a word in the speech about the homeless. However, I accept that the Minister was principally concerned with explaining the framework of the document. Given the words of that charity, one wonders how much further down the existing road this Government think it fitting to go. I urge the Government to reconsider their strategy.
I return to the visits which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has paid to the city of Londonderry during the past six months or so in connection with the expansion of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. That is a long-standing cross-border institution. I noticed that the Republic of Ireland also sent its Minister to the meeting at the commission. We are naturally interested in the Foyle Commission because the ceasefire and the Framework document have given added importance to such institutions. May I ask whether the Foyle Commission has genuine popular support? How are local people given an opportunity to have a say in what is provided by it? Who provides the purse? Can the commission's role be extended without new primary or secondary legislation? If it is necessary to obtain legislation, when shall we see the colour of that legislation?
Finally, I want to say a word about the Tower Museum in Londonderry that I visited. It is a noteworthy museum. It depicts the origins and development of its community

485
on the banks of the Foyle and its solid traditions of absolute loyalty since early days. Obviously, much thought had gone into the planning of that museum. I wondered how the history of the past 25 years will be presented—obviously it will have to be recorded and interpreted—to the new generation of schoolchildren in the schools of Northern Ireland. That is difficult territory but I leave that thought with the Minister.
1 shall not raise any further issues. I welcome the order as I welcome the good news from Harland and Wolff, Shorts and Sainsbury, though I take note of what my noble friend Lord Fitt said in regard to Sainsbury. I look forward to some enlightenment and assurances on the few questions I asked.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the usual high standard of contributions which I have come to expect on Northern Ireland issues. I was delighted that on the whole the views expressed were extremely optimistic about the future and shared my view that, while there is much to do, there is now the possibility to do it.
I welcome also the return of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to the Front Bench on Northern Ireland issues. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be grateful that he has such an able substitute to call upon. I join the noble Lord in saying that we miss the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to Northern Ireland debates. I am afraid we also miss now the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who tonight brought a touch of elegance to the debate. Unfortunately he had to leave because of the commitment that caused his elegant dress. I have no doubt that he will read every word that I say with great care and follow up if I do not answer his questions. I will try to cover all the matters raised. There were many which were on common ground and the noble Lord touched on some of the most important issues on Northern Ireland. If I miss anything, I shall make certain that I reply in writing.
Before I start with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, perhaps I can take issue with him. It could be said that geographically Northern Ireland is peripheral. But we feel that our task is to convince the world that Northern Ireland is the centre of the universe, and we spend our time trying to do that—with some success.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, speaks with direct first hand knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland and raised the issue of what may be termed "peace dividend money". The ceasefires have allowed the security forces to respond to a diminished threat and that, in turn, allowed the Secretary of State to allocate savings totalling £180 million over the next three years from criminal damage and emergency provisions compensation and RUC overtime. Those savings have been reallocated to important economic and social programmes in Northern Ireland, including, I am delighted to reassure the noble Lord opposite, the provision for raising school standards. New resources will be put into first year primary school education and extra resources have been allocated to the "Making Belfast Work" initiative and also to the community work programme for the long-term unemployed. We are
486
therefore using the money—we have the commitment of the Prime Minister that we can keep it—for extremely constructive purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred to the cost of the health service administration. I stress that the expenditure on health and social care services in Northern Ireland is over £1,500 million, or nearly £1 ,000 per man, woman and child in the population. Those are large sums. The Government's reforms of the health and social care services were designed to improve quality and raise levels of efficiency. The devolution of responsibilities to local level encouraged greater innovation and responsiveness to the needs of patients and clients. I can assure the noble Lord that the cost of administering the services is kept under close review.
Recently the DHSS imposed a ceiling on the management costs of hoards. Trusts will be required to publicise their management costs in their annual reports and I am confident that moves are being made to exert downward pressure on those costs in the HPSS. It is an important issue. The noble Lord opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the question of Springvale, coming from opposite sides of the scale. The situation is that an economic appraisal has been commissioned from the consultants Pieda, and the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council has been asked to consider the educational aspects. Those reports are expected in the near future. In advance of those, no comments can be made on the Springvale situation.
Both noble Lords also raised the question of funding for roads. The importance of the road networks in the Province is well recognised. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, it is important to building the economy for the future. A sum in excess of £150 million is invested annually on the development, operation and maintenance of the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, knows, there are many competing demands for funds available within the Northern Ireland block, but I am convinced that the roads message is well heard. I register the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the reduction on expenditure by pointing out that the M3 Cross Harbour Bridge, phase one, has been completed. For those of us who use it, it brought great benefit to the speed with which we can move about the Province and therefore achieve more in our jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, raised the question of the budget for SPARD schemes. As he said, that was closed temporarily on 24th March to allow the department time to assess its financial commitments to farmers. The reason behind the temporary closure was to ensure that those farmers who had applied could be assured of the funds to meet their applications. That is our first requirement—financially to support those farmers who applied. As the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, well knows, when I offered two days' amnesty for people to apply, we doubled the number of applications received. That leaves us with a considerable assessment job ahead of us and we shall reopen the scheme as soon as we are reassured in regard to the amount of money needed to honour the applications.
In answering that point I should share with your Lordships, with some pleasure, that farming incomes in Northern Ireland are at the highest level in real terms for

487
21 years. Last year saw farm incomes up 19 per cent. There are always individual cases of difference, but there is good news for farmers in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also touched on another major issue; that is, the opportunities for fishing and for fishermen. I have much sympathy for this area because there comes the basic issue of the lack of stock in the Irish Sea and I fully appreciate that fishermen want to fish. I am aware of the problems of nephrops trawlers in the Northern Ireland fleet and the strength of feeling in the Northern Ireland industry to have them included in the next round of decommissioning. I can assure the noble Lord that those points have been made to the UK fisheries Minister, not only by me but also by the fishermen themselves.
Again, at the noble Lord's request perhaps I may comment on the state of the construction industry in Northern Ireland. The estimated value of construction work from planned public expenditure in 1995–96 is £869 million; that is some £18 million higher than the planned figure for the year 1994–95. Construction output in Northern Ireland has increased by 7.5 per cent. since 1990. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there are schemes such as the Royal Victoria Hospital and others, coming along. We appreciate the need that the capital and maintenance involved in the construction industry should begin at the earliest possible opportunity determined by the availability of resources.
Most noble Lords referred to electricity prices in Northern Ireland. The issue there is very much one of divergence with Great Britain because the United Kingdom has a low energy cost. When we are talking to potential inward investors from Japan we learn that the cost there of energy is more than twice as high as it is in Northern Ireland. I must say that I am more optimistic than noble Lords about the outlook for the future. Prices have been stable in real terms. If Northern Ireland prices are to be compared with the average in Great Britain I would urge noble Lords also to look at areas like the south west and Wales, where the problems on the edge show in the differential between the prices of electricity in more central regions.
There are major basic problems about the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland compared with the cost in Great Britain. There is the isolation, and the smaller scale of the market means that we cannot make the economies of scale. We have currently a heavy oil dependency but I am delighted that all projections show that that will decrease very rapidly in the coming years to the benefit of the Province. We have a difference in density of population. It costs us more to get our electricity to the people in the rural areas. Those are facts in Northern Ireland and we have to live with them.
Noble Lords should also look at recent fuel price rises. The cost of oil has more than doubled in the past two years and that reflects in the price. Physical problems are being tackled very hard through the development of the planned electricity interconnector and the gas pipeline project. A study is in existence on the potential for combined heat and power in Northern Ireland, which will bring considerable benefits. There will be a growth of competition within the industry in the coming years. The
488
more efficient use of electricity will also help to keep a downward pressure on future prices. In the past the domestic user subsidised the large industrial user. In evening that out, there will undoubtedly he an effect on industrial users. I am also delighted that the considerable amounts allocated to the energy efficiency programmes—more than £6 million—are focused on those people with greatest need and the older members of our population, to whom we must give support.
The regulator will examine very closely the position in 1997. Northern Ireland is only two years into privatisation. The first price review is in 1997. Great Britain is undoubtedly doing better because the industry was privatised earlier. However, just two years into privatisation, Northern Ireland is doing at least as well as Great Britain was doing at the same point.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the announcement made yesterday to the Select Committee by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the Government have decided to provide financial assistance to ensure that Northern Ireland electricity consumers will enjoy an equivalent benefit to their counterparts in Great Britain when the nuclear levy is abolished. That is to be decided in detail, but it is tremendously good news for Northern Ireland and will stop the differential increasing to the horrendous figure that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, brought to our attention. The Public Accounts Committee report, Privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity was published on 25th May this year. A comprehensive response will be issued in due course. The noble Lord will he aware that it is not normal practice to comment on a report until a memorandum of reply has been laid. It will be laid before the House.
Noble Lords required information about how the European Union funds granted under the peace and reconciliation terms of the European initiative will be used. The programme is still under negotiation with the Commission and it is too early to say what the nature of the intermediary bodies might be. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that the councils will have an important and constructive role to play in this programme because, as he rightly said, we have to encourage them to take responsibility for the future shape of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, paid tribute to the work of community relations. We all hope that we are coming to a time when peace can be consolidated and we work hard towards that end. There is a need for constructive dialogue across all communities. The budget for that is well reinforced. There will be a new urgency towards and emphasis on community relations work. Never has it been more important. We as a government are fully committed to it.
I listened carefully and with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He said very strongly something with which I wholeheartedly agree. He said that the people of Northern Ireland do not want to return to violence and that they cherish the current situation. He also drew attention to the knowledge displayed in David Bleakley's hook which is based on much personal experience. That recommendation also came from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, last week. I cannot go for much longer without ensuring that I do indeed read it. The Government will react to an improved climate when it is judged correct to

489
do so. We have made it clear that the possibility of movement on prison issues, including release issues, in parallel with progress in other areas, is not excluded. But that would be governed by an objective assessment of the paramilitary threat and there will be no amnesty for those convicted of terrorist offences. There are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about an interim assembly. When we brought forward the framework document, it was a document for discussion. Other constitutional political parties which renounce violence can bring forward suggestions and documents for discussion, because it is important that we talk and that we build. The noble Lord indicated that there was no easy progress of this path and that we would all have to work extremely hard at it.
I was pleased that the noble Lord referred to the fall in the number of long-term unemployed. But there is the issue of how we get even more of these 56,000 people hack into work. We shall have to be extremely innovative in our programmes to attract them back into the workforce. I stress how much we need them because the private sector estimates that we shall see 60,000 more jobs in Northern Ireland by the end of the decade. That is an ambitious estimate, but I hope it is achievable. That means that we shall need to train and skill every single member of our community.
A start has been made with the community work programme. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, challenged us as to where the programme will be at the end of the century. We have had to tear up some of our projections. There is a whole new situation in Northern Ireland. Many people have come up with projections of what the figures will be. The private sector-led initiative has suggested that a 5 per cent. growth in GDP is a target to aim for. What we are doing right now is looking at all these projections, along with our own, in order to be able to publish the challenge that we are prepared to accept and, I hope, meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about provision for the Training and Employment Agency. I read it as being similar to the provisions for the previous year. I will double check that for the noble Lord, but he is absolutely right when he says that we have to upskill our population.
The IDB provision commences in 1995–96 with a higher provision than last year. Early indications are that we may need to seek to increase that provision even more during the current financial year because we do not intend to lose one prospect of inward investment. We shall continue to work to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also questioned the size of the Government's forward commitment on funds to integrated education. I simply stress that we are committed to integrated education, but it is in response to viable proposals from parents so it is a budget which is demand led. It is moving steadily upwards and with success. Again, I put on record that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it crystal clear that the full amount of the European Union Peace Funds including the matching funds, will be additional.
490
I also say to the noble Lord that we are indeed looking at the issue of the European Investment Bank for an interest rate subsidy scheme to be administered under the European Union scheme. The details are being negotiated at the moment.
The visit to Washington was a wonderful success. It was made a success by those who were there. There was some doubt as regards the cost of the Washington conference, but that turned out to be a total investment in the future of Northern Ireland. We are already seeing commitments from the American corporate sector. We had the commitment of the President, the Vice-President and the two Secretaries of State for a time. Representatives of the corporate sector stayed with us throughout the breakouts of individual areas. I have already had people in my office, following the conference, who have been over to look at the opportunities. I can assure the noble Lord that we are seeing a great follow-up faster than we anticipated. I further assure him that we are well aware of the need for training and support in setting up in business that the security forces will need, we hope, in due course. Already plans are laid for that. We are seeing members of the RUC talking to our small business agency.
I know that the noble Lord will ensure that NIACRO works hard in ensuring that prisoners being released are offered opportunities to achieve in the community. The Foyle fisheries have enormous support locally. There are consultative committees in which views can be expressed. We shall need primary legislation and the drafting work is being undertaken at the moment. The two governments are committed to contributing a £400,000 grant to the commission to ensure that its work continues.
It is a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to assess housing need; to bring forward programmes and to allocate resources to meet the needs of the homeless. I shall look at the figures which the noble Lord quoted. We have increased the budget for housing. We have splendid public sector housing in Northern Ireland. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord's views and I shall examine them.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the excess vote we are looking for when commenting on the Northern Ireland education system. There is a paper attached to the estimate which explains the full details and that is why I did not go into detail. It covers two issues. It is important that Government officers are spread throughout the Province. This was a relocation from Bangor to Londonderry which brought in new players who did not get it right first time. But it was not a major problem financially and neither did it have an effect on education.
We work constantly to ensure that children leave with qualifications. We are seeing improvements. The number of pupils obtaining one or more higher grades at GCSE has gone from 59.5 per cent. in 1987–88 to 75.8 per cent. in 1992–93. To ensure fair employment and equal benefit to all communities, we have to ensure that there are qualified youngsters and we work to do that.
I conclude with two points which I believe I have not covered. As regards Sainsbury's plans for the Province, some of them involve sites which already have planning permission. Those create no difficulties. My honourable

491
friend in the other place promised last night that Sainsburys, as anyone else, will be subject to normal planning requirements. There is no question of special opportunities. However, it is a great boost to the economy to see such a company interested in locating there.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the question of the benefit that the Republic of Ireland has with its 10 per cent. corporation tax. I am not surprised that it has managed to attract more investment in past years. With the images that were being sent around the world from Northern Ireland, I believe that IDB did a magnificent job to attract any investment to Northern Ireland in those years. We have certainly not lost out.
We are dealing with inward investment and with sophisticated companies which have many requirements in their future plans. Northern Ireland can indeed offer a very convincing package. What is tremendously important is that those companies that have come have frequently reinvested, which is the best tribute that could be paid to the workforce.
I thank all noble Lords for their commitment to Northern Ireland and the points raised in this debate. They were important points and I shall ensure that none of them is missed. We have much to do and we now have a great opportunity to do it. When terrorism goes off the agenda we can concentrate on targeting social need to make sure that everyone shares in the prosperity which peace can bring.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gas Bill
8.47 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 6 [Licensing of gas suppliers and gas shippers]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert:
("() A licence shall not be granted under this section to a person until they have in place a 24 hour staffed emergency public telephone number for reporting and logging emergency calls from members of the public or the emergency services, on gas escapes and other emergencies agreed with Health and Safety Executive.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. These amendments deal with the safety of the general public. Although I understand that the safety regulations appear on the licence, we wish to ensure, by debating these amendments, that the proper safety of the general public is maintained. Even if the transporter is responsible for all gas escapes and emergencies, regardless of where the customer buys the gas, the public may still be confused and possibly phone the wrong number. It is no good the customer being told to ring another number or, even worse, get an answerphone.
Suppliers and shippers must take responsibility for dealing with the call, logging the time and recording what action they took. They must also take responsibility for passing on the information to the transporter; otherwise a number of emergency calls may go missing or be lost in
492
the system. I imagine that this can be properly handled in large companies, but what about small suppliers such as housing associations which may not have adequate safety resources? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: About a year ago I made inquiries on exactly this subject. It was just as pertinent then as it will become under this legislation. I discovered that now, by statutory instrument, there has to be a telephone number attached to each gas meter. Obviously, the gas meter is the place where, in an emergency, the average gas consumer will go to find such a telephone number. Clearly, under the new regime, the number on the gas meter will be that of TransCo which, as the noble Lord explained, is responsible for dealing with gas escapes and emergencies. I am told that that will cover the situation, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to confirm what I have said.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has raised an important issue, the question of safety. We cannot sufficiently emphasise how important that is. The fact that TransCo has that responsibility is satisfactory in the sense that it will inherit from British Gas the ultimate responsibility. Unfortunately, the market is now to be fragmented and people will become confused about whom they should get in touch with in an emergency. The obvious person is the supplier. It seems right that we should have both belt and braces in this situation and that the supplier should make arrangements to have the telephone manned permanently, immediately transmitting to TransCo or dealing with the matter in whatever way may be satisfactory in order to minimise any safety problems.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has very adequately set out the situation. I should like to establish that the smaller suppliers are not required themselves to have a man sitting at the end of the telephone but that they can contract that task to a reputable firm such as Air Call, or something similar, which operates a nationwide emergency call-out service for a variety of purposes, including doctors. That should be perfectly sufficient. Indeed, that situation appears acceptable—at least at present—in relation to exempt suppliers. A great deal of confusion was caused earlier by suggestions of Ofgas that telephone systems had to be operated individually by each supplier, no matter how small. If my noble friend can assure us that independent and fragmented suppliers may use a contractor to carry out the necessary reception and transmission of calls, I am sure that we shall be able to make progress.
Lord Inglewood: As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said earlier, safety is paramount in these matters. As Members of the Committee may know, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to look at the safety implications of the liberalisation of the gas supply market and we have accepted the recommendations of its report.
The Health and Safety Commission concluded that there should continue to be a single contact point for reporting suspected gas leaks and that it should be the responsibility of pipeline operators to provide the emergency response. We understand that British Gas is putting in place a single 0800 freephone telephone

493
number. This is provided for in the draft of the standard conditions of the transporter's licence—Condition 13—which requires transporters jointly to arrange for the maintenance of a single continuously attended telephone service for the receipt of reports of escapes of gas. They are also required to secure adequate publicity for the service and its telephone number. I hope that that answers some of the concerns.
I believe that it is preferable for there to be one party responsible for receiving reports of gas leaks and arranging for them to be dealt with rather than requiring each and every supplier and shipper to have their own procedures in place. That would lead to a multiplicity of telephone numbers and services which would only serve to confuse the customer with potentially dangerous results.
If someone concerned about a possible gas leak rings the wrong telephone number, the person on the receiving end of that call will have absolutely no doubt about what number to give out. Therefore, not only is simple confusion avoided, but what might be described as "compound confusion" is also avoided.
We understand that the Health and Safety Commission will shortly be consulted on new safety regulations for gas. These will in due course supersede the provisions in the Bill. The duties in respect of emergencies will be further considered at that stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will find those comments a helpful explanation of the position.
Lord Haskel: I thank the noble Lord for that reassuring response. Obviously, it is preferable for there to be only one number; otherwise there will be confusion. When the new regulations are prepared, can they be publicised in some way so that we all know about them? We have aired our concerns and have had some reassurance from the Minister and, in view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, leave out lines 6 to 12 and insert:
("(b) in the case of a licence under subsection (1) (b) above, as if it were also a licence under subsection (1) (a) above and any premises specified in the direction were specified in the licence,
and references in this Part to, or to the grant of, an extension under this section, or an extension of such a licence, shall be construed as references to, or to the giving of, such a direction.
() The Director may, with the consent of the licence holder, direct that any licence under this section shall have effect as if any premises specified in the direction were not specified in the licence; and references in this Part to, or to the grant of, a restriction under this section, or a restriction of such a licence, shall be construed as references to, or to the giving of, such a direction.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment enabling the director to respond to the wishes of those who are already licensed to supply the commercial and industrial market and subsequently wish to supply the domestic market as well. It enables her to extend a non-domestic licence so that it becomes a domestic one.
There is no need for such licence holders to obtain a second separate licence in order to supply the domestic gas market as their supply licences will contain the standard conditions which include the provisions necessary for the domestic market.
The same statutory provisions govern applications for licence extensions as those which apply to the grant of new licences. The director will still need to be sure that the extension of the licence does not appear artificially to exclude an undue proportion of elderly or disabled customers. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I should like to make just one blanket point. A number of government amendments have been tabled which all seem to he technical in nature. I received the Notes on Clauses for those amendments only a couple of hours ago and I have to confess that I have written a question mark by each, meaning that I do not understand. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, agrees, I should prefer not to have to speak to each technical government amendment. I say that with one proviso. If in due course I discover that they are not technical, I trust that the Government will not object if I find a means of at least exploring them. I do not expect that to be the case, but it would help the passage of business at this time if the noble Lord could comment on that suggestion.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. That seems an entirely acceptable way of proceeding. I am sure that he will not find any problems.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("an undue proportion of").
The noble Lord said: We now have a number of amendments which my noble friend Lady David and I have tabled on various matters relating to means-tested benefits. The first time this provision was raised by my noble friend Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others intervened and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that he was still convinced that the Government were correct. He also said that he thought that the amendment was worth looking at in case the Government had missed anything.
I do not think that noble Lords would like me to repeat on amendment after amendment exactly the same arguments put so cogently by my noble friend and others. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is willing to agree to this suggestion with, I emphasise, no commitment. I am not necessarily convinced that he will change his mind, but as we have made the point already I honestly do not believe that anything is achieved by going over the same ground time and again. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord will undertake to consider the situation as a whole. Perhaps I may pause there to see whether the noble Lord will agree to that, but I then have an extra and different word or two to say about the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his remarks. They appear to be entirely consistent with the approach that we discussed in respect of an earlier clause. I am very happy to proceed on the basis that we will reflect again on the points that have been

495
made. Obviously, we cannot give any commitment but we will reflect upon them. On that basis, I am delighted to acquiesce in the suggestion.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. I deal now with the more substantive point: Amendment No. 33. The amendment is to leave out the words, "an undue proportion or. I am convinced that that is right. Essentially, the Government say that one should not distort the description or area so as to exclude, or include, people on the grounds that it contains those who are disabled or are of pensionable age. The matter of principle involved here is that one should not do it. The words "undue proportion" are neither here nor there. I do not say that it may not turn out that way, but that should not be the intention. I do not believe that the Government should insist on retaining an undue proportion of premises. I do not wish to use the wrong metaphor, but to sin a little is not, in my judgment, much better than to sin a lot. It is wrong to sin. I would have thought that all noble Lords would say that these companies should not be able to take into account the number of disabled or people of pensionable age. They just should not do it. I am puzzled as to why the Government believe it is all right for companies to misbehave a little but not if they misbehave a lot. I believe that the Government should say that that will not do.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has misunderstood this part of the Bill. As I understand it, the director has a duty to make certain that a level playing field—to use a horrible expression—exists in these particular circumstances. I do not believe that the noble Lord should have a problem. It is not the companies who exert undue influence; it is the director who has to ensure that they do not.
Lord Peston: I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong. This is concerned with the director considering the description of the area. I take that to mean the description of the area as formulated by the companies. If the director does so, I believe that it is even more wrong. It would be an outrage if the director bore in mind these matters in taking a decision. After all, the director is still a public servant. I freely admit that I may be wrong, but I understand that this is concerned with the director taking decisions about what companies propose to do.
Lord Skelmersdale: One makes an application for a licence and the director has the duty to decide whether or not to grant it. In formulating that decision he or she will take cognisance of these words in the Bill. However, to be safer, I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: This matter presents a further problem. The words proposed in the amendment and in the Bill tend to provide a snapshot view of the area to which gas is to be supplied. We are not considering the supply of gas for just a day but for a number of years. Demographic shift may come into it. An area may go down hill or it may become gentrified (to use a ghastly word). In any event, its character may change. Does that
496
then bring down the wrath of the director in order to reduce in one case or increase in another the proportion of customers who fall within that area?
Lord Inglewood: It is important to be clear that, in exercising her duties, the director is obliged to comply with the matters described in Clause 1 of the Bill: the general duties of the Secretary of State and director. Any decisions that the director may take in any particular circumstances have to be set against that backdrop. We are trying not to regulate the profile of licence areas down to the last consumer. Some variations nationally are to be expected. We reject the suggestion that all suppliers should be required to develop an identical portfolio of customers. It would be absurd to set supply companies quotas for certain numbers of different customers.
Reference has been made to the words "undue proportion", which appear in the amendment. It appears to me that the best way to see how the test works is to return to the underlying duties of the director. The words "undue proportion" may be described as the label that the director will use to identify whether or not there is any sin, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Clearly, there will be some people in these particular categories in every area. We are concerned with a situation where the matter gets out of kilter. To draw the description too tightly may make it very difficult for the director to grant licences, particularly if competitors threaten judicial review. We believe that "undue" gives a margin before she is required to reject an application. It is a form of words that is intended to be helpful to the director to enable the director in the circumstances of any particular case—every case will have different characteristics—to come to a proper conclusion on the facts.
Lord Peston: I always worry when I appear to be the only one who believes he is in step and that no one else understands the particular part of the Bill. My point is precisely what the noble Lord has said. Companies should not take account of the number of people who are disabled or of pensionable age in determining the area. Whether it is a lot or a few, they should not be allowed to take that into account. As I understand it, that is the nature of the Bill. Equally, the director should not be able to say to the companies that they do not have enough people in those areas. The companies may say that they have not framed it in that way but in a way that is convenient to them. It may also happen that those areas do not contain a lot of old people or the particular one does. My point is that that has nothing to do with it. That is the spirit of the Bill, and that is why "undue proportion" is wrong.
If "undue proportion" was right, they could say that they had looked at the number of old people and had decided that it was not an undue proportion; in other words, that they had borne it in mind and had decided to discriminate against old people, but they were not discriminating very much. I believe that that would be outrageous. However, that is the only way in which this particular part of the Bill can be read. In another context, I would say that both the companies and the director should be colour blind, to use that racist expression, or age blind and disabled blind. However, "undue proportion" would enable them to take it into account as long as it was

497
not too much. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want or that they wish to go for that form of words. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his concerns. I am sure that there is nothing between us in what we are trying to do. In these circumstances, we are endeavouring to ensure that in any particular instance a licence holder does not discriminate against those classes of people. We are talking about classes of people who will inevitably be dispersed and scattered throughout the community.
We do not want the applicant deliberately to frame his applications to, as it were, abandon them. Bearing in mind that wherever one looks in society some people fall into those categories, it is important to give some kind of indication and test to the director so that in looking at the matter against the backdrop of her general responsibilities she knows how to look at the way in which the applications may be drawn up to ensure that discrimination does not occur. We are concerned to avoid discrimination.
Lord Peston: I shall give up at this point. The noble Lord makes the correct point: we are concerned that there should be no discrimination. The Bill says, "Yes, there can be some as long as it is not unduly large", which is what "undue proportion" means. That is what I am trying to get over to the noble Lord. The Bill ought to say that there should be no discrimination. That is what he has just said. That is what my amendment does.
Perhaps we are becoming tired. That often happens at about this hour. If it would help the noble Lord, perhaps he would like to think about what I have said. I shall certainly reflect upon what he has said, and we will come back to it. I am genuinely puzzled, because since what he said is what I believe, what I do not seem to be able to persuade him of is that the Bill does not say what he says. Having said that, I think the best thing is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, and we shall come back to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert:
("(6A) If the holder of a licence under subsection (1) above applies to the Director for a restriction of the licence, or for the revocation of the licence in accordance with any term contained in it, the Director shall, subject to subsection (6) above, accede to the application if he is satisfied that such arrangements have been made as—

(a) will secure continuity of supply for all relevant consumers; and

(b) in the case of each such consumer who is supplied with gas in pursuance of a contract, will secure such continuity on the same terms as nearly as may be as the terms of the contract.

(6B) A person is a relevant consumer for the purposes of subsection (6A) above if—

(a) immediately before the restriction or revocation takes effect, he is being supplied with gas by the holder of the licence; and

(b) in the case of a restriction, his premises are excluded from the licence by the restriction.").

The noble Lord said: It is important to ensure that a gas supplier is free to withdraw from the gas supply market if he wants to. The lack of a clear right to do that would be likely to deter potential new entrants to the market and
498
inhibit the development of competition. However, it is obviously important that suppliers should not withdraw simply by cutting off their customers, leaving them without gas while they tried to find a new supplier.
The amendment therefore provides that the director should not be required to revoke or restrict a supplier's licence until the supplier has made arrangements to ensure that the customer continues to receive a supply of gas, in the case of a contractual customer, on the terms set out in his contract.
The right to withdraw from a part of the market is subject to the provisions forbidding restrictions which artificially include an undue proportion of vulnerable customers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 38, leave out from ("no") to ("before") in line 39 and insert ("domestic supply licence shall authorise the supply of gas to any premises").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 37, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41.
The amendments provide for certain cases where parties other than British Gas should be able to obtain a licence to supply gas outside the pilot areas during the transitional phase to full national competition. Some companies other than British Gas are already supplying gas to domestic consumers in special cases, normally where they use their own pipeline systems. It would he quite wrong if, on the way to full competition, such companies were prevented from continuing that activity.
These amendments are therefore intended to ensure that, while there is to be no direct competition between gas suppliers for domestic customers outside the pilot phases, it will be possible for suppliers other than British Gas to continue to supply gas to domestic customers in special cases before full nationwide competition is introduced. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert:
("(2A) In the period before the relevant date the Director shall—

(a) monitor the effect of the granting of a licence under subsections (3) to (5) below on such persons as in his opinion are appropriate; and

(b) consult such persons and organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons affected by the granting of a licence under those subsections, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, on the effects of granting such a licence.

(2B) No licence shall be granted under section 7A(1) (a) of the 1986 Act (other than by virtue of subsections (3) to (5) below) until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating—

(a) the results of the monitoring and responses to the consultation referred to in subsection (2A) above;

(b) the effect, in his opinion and in the opinion of the Director, of the granting of licences under subsections (3) to (5) below and Schedule 5 to this Act in the period before the relevant date; and

(c) the reasons why, in his opinion, it is in the interests of all persons affected that licences under section 7A(I) (a) of the 1986 Act should be granted.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to implement the Trade and Industry Select Committee's recommendations outlined in its recent report the Domestic Gas Market to consider the impact of competition in the pilot areas. The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 25. I do not wish to go over all the arguments and discussions that we had then. The Minister said that he would go away, think about it, and come back later.
The amendment requires the regulator to monitor the effect of competition in the pilot areas on those affected and to consult them and others, as appropriate. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: We have always accepted that competition should be introduced in a phased manner. It has taken root successfully in the industrial sector, and we recognise that the domestic market requires a phased approach, not least because of the number of premises involved.
The gradual transition to national competition will provide an opportunity to test the necessary technical and administrative systems for the balancing of gas and the transfer of customers. It will allow British Gas TransCo and competing gas suppliers to iron out any problems with their systems while they are operating on a relatively small scale.
We must be clear that the pilot is not intended to test the principle of whether competition will go ahead. Such an approach would cast a cloud of uncertainty over the industry—both onshore and in the North Sea—which would be in nobody's interest and which might well mean that suppliers did not make the investment needed for competition to be a success. It would be wrong to try to re-open, through the back door, the principle of a competitive gas market.
However, although the pilot is largely about getting systems right, that is not its sole purpose. Clearly, the director will wish to consider carefully how things go, taking particular note of the results from the Gas Consumers' Council and other groups with comparable expertise. If that monitoring showed that licence conditions were not having the desired effect the director could make proposals to change them. We also recognise that there needs to be adequate information on the development of competition. This will be the case in the pilot phase and beyond.
That is why, when we discussed Amendment No. 25, I said that we would be prepared to bring forward an amendment to Section 39 of the Gas Act, which would provide for the director, in her annual report, to report not just on her activities but also on the state of competition in the gas supply market in general. That report will, of course, be laid before Parliament. We believe that this will provide a proper basis for reporting by the director on
500
competition, both in the limited pilot phase—as Amendment No. 38 suggests—and also for many years to come.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that response and for the confirmation that a report will be made on the state of competition. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41:
Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("to") to ("premises") in line 2 on page 9 and insert ("a domestic supply licence in so far as it relates to—

(a) any premises to which subsection (3A) below applies; or

(b) any premises to which that subsection has ceased to apply at any time and which are situated in an area which has not, at that or any later time, ceased to be an authorised area of a particular public gas transporter.

(3A) This subsection applies to any premises at any time if, at that time, the public gas transporter in whose authorised area the premises are situated is an associate of the holder of the domestic supply licence in question.
(4) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to a domestic supply licence in so far as it relates to any premises to which gas is conveyed in pursuance of an exemption from section 5(1) (a) of the 1986 Act granted under section 6A of that Act.
(5) In so far as a domestic supply licence relates to").
Page 9, line 7, leave out from ("in") to ("includes") in line 8 and insert ("this section to a domestic supply licence").
Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("In") to ("if") in line 14 and insert ("this section—
"domestic supply licence" means a licence granted under subsection (1) (a) of section 7A of the 1986 Act, a licence having effect as such a licence by virtue of a direction given under subsection (4) (b) of that section, or a licence treated as so granted by virtue of a scheme made under paragraph 4 or 12 of Schedule 5 to this Act;
"public gas transporter", and "authorised area" in relation to such a transporter, have the same meanings as in Part I of that Act.
() For the purposes of this section a public gas transporter is an associate of the holder of a domestic supply licence").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46:
Page 10, line 3, after ("services") insert (", including those services that must be delivered by home advisers,").
Page 10, line 5, after ("age") insert ("or in receipt of one or more of the means-tested benefits").
Page 10, line 21, at end insert:
("() conditions requiring arrangements to be made to avoid disconnection from supply and the build-up of arrears and to make available payment methods which take the circumstances of customers into account;
() conditions requiring gas suppliers to offer energy efficiency services in addition to the supply of gas;").
The noble Lord said: I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would include these amendments in the group that he is to look at under the heading of people on means-tested benefit. At this stage I do not propose to debate them further.
[Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, line 39, after ("licence") insert (", or under any document specified or described in the licence,").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51. These amendments are necessary to enable the licences to provide for the director to determine questions arising under the network code and the rules governing modifications to that code.
It has become clear from discussions between British Gas and gas shippers on the development of the code that they would like to be able to refer certain questions to the director general where they cannot agree. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 10, line 51, at end insert:
("() Where—

(i) the holder of a licence under section 7 above who in consequence of conditions included in that licence by paragraph (b) above is required to make a payment in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph; or

(ii) the holder of a licence under section 7A above who seeks a payment from the holder of a licence under section 7 above who in consequence of conditions included in that licence by paragraph (b) above may be required to make a payment in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph but who is refused such a payment—

such holder may appeal to the Secretary of State against the requirement or refusal to make such a payment as the case may be and the Secretary of State shall have the power, having regard to all the circumstances, to set aside that requirement or require the making of such a payment as he thinks fit.".).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 50 was grouped with Amendment No. 52. However, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, wishes to separate them, although both deal with the levy. The concept of the levy is important and needs to be supported. It is an interesting example of regulating an otherwise competitive market and goes back to my earlier point about undue proportion. There will be consumers who are particularly expensive to provide with gas but they will need the services. That will be agreed. The question is: will whoever gets stuck with supplying them receive a levy to enable the cost more easily to be met?
I know that the Gas Consumers' Council was in favour of the levy I am not certain what the potential competitors' views are on the matter. According to a document that I received from British Gas, it is interested in the matter but it has mixed feelings about some aspects of it. I can well understand that.
My amendment deals with a rather technical matter. What happens if the regulator decides not to levy the levy? I seem to be running into great problems of exposition with those words. They sound awful. However, I hate to use expressions like "activate the levy". I hear the Minister suggest that I should say, "raise the levy". I think that is right. If the regulator decides not to raise the levy, according to my understanding of the Bill, I believe that that would be the end of the matter.
The purpose of my amendment is to provide that the Secretary of State would be in a position to make the director reconsider. Equally, the amendment as drafted
502
allows the Secretary of State to reverse that and say, where a levy has been raised, that he does not think that it is appropriate. We are in very deep water here because the Government have certainly gone to some trouble to try to keep the Secretary of State in other areas out of matters which should not concern him. I am in favour of that. But, equally, the Secretary of State has been given very considerable powers and here we have an area where I think noble Lords on the Government Benches should at least reflect on whether, in the case of a levy, it can just be left to the director to decide the matter.
Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is essentially to say that, if accepted, the amendment would put the Secretary of State in a position which I do not believe is dictatorial; indeed, it is very much a backstop position with respect to the levy. However, it is one that would be useful. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for explaining the position. It is, indeed, a complicated matter. I hope that I may be helpful to the Committee in my response. I hope that noble Lords have been able to consider the revised version of the draft standard conditions of the gas suppliers' licence, which was placed in the Library on Tuesday 20th June. Standard Condition 6, which was numbered 6A on the last round, has been revised in the light of further consideration and of the detailed consultation that we have carried out.
Condition 6 sets out in detail the procedures to be followed by a gas supplier to claim for a "special customer payment". Condition 7 of the public gas transporters' licence sets out the obligations on the transporter if a claim is duly made. It should be noted that it is the companies concerned that initiate the "levy" procedure, not the Secretary of State or the director. That is an important protection for the companies concerned.
The procedures include provisions for both the Secretary of State and the director to consult the applicant and other interested parties following an application, and to consider their representations. They provide a timetable after which, if the Secretary of State and director simply do nothing, the claim is deemed to have been approved.
The supplier, therefore, has every opportunity to make his case both to the Secretary of State and to the director before a decision is made. The director is required to review claims against carefully set out criteria, and the Secretary of State then has a power to veto the claim.
The Secretary of State, therefore, already has an opportunity to form a view on a claim for payment. I do not believe it to be necessary to add the further level of scrutiny or appeal, given that the licence already sets out detailed criteria for the director's consideration. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will find my response reassuring.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his reply. I should, again, apologise to the Committee because, although I picked up a copy of the draft standard conditions of the gas suppliers' licence yesterday, I would be misleading noble Lords if I tried to pretend that I mastered it in any form whatever. My immediate response to trying to look at it at all was one of being totally appalled.

503
I take it that the Minister is saying that my amendment is actually covered in the licences to the degree that he feels that I ought to be happy. For the moment, I am willing to accept that view. However, I have to warn the Minister that, being me, I am quite likely to read the document in some detail and come back saying, "My judgment is that the draft licence does not say what the noble Lord said". For the moment, all I understand is what the Minister ,J1d me and I find that to be excellent. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 51:
Page I1, line 6, leave out ("specified document") and insert ("document specified or described in the licence").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 11, line 20, at end insert:
("(8A) Where—

(a) the holder of a licence under section 7A(1) (a) has supplied an undue proportion of premises owned or occupied by persons who are disabled or of pensionable age, or who have defaulted in the payment of charges;

(b) the conditions included in that licence make provision for the holder to apply for payments to be made to him by virtue of section 7B(5) (b) (ii) above; and

(c) that holder of that licence ("the claimant supplier") applies for such payments to be made;

the Director shall, as soon as practicable after an application has been made, require such public gas transporter as he considers appropriate so to raise its charges for the conveyance of gas as to provide the amount described in subsection (8B) below and to pay that amount to the claimant supplier.
(8B) The amount referred to in subsection (8A) above is the amount which is requisite to secure that the ability of the claimant supplier to finance the carrying on of the activities which he is authorised or required by his licence to carry on is not adversely affected by reason of his supplying premises of the nature described in subsection (8A) (a) above or such lesser amount as would be required by an efficient supplier of those premises for that purpose.").
The noble Earl said: The levy concept in the Bill is designed to ensure that suppliers who concentrate only on supplying the most profitable customers are required to contribute to the cost of supplying more vulnerable groups. High cost groups include older and disabled customers and those who have genuine difficulty in paying their bills. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Inglewood recognised this and the requirements of these groups when he replied to Amendment No. 19 earlier this afternoon.
These groups often require special services that at the moment are provided free of charge. I believe it would be clearly wrong for these special services to be unavailable. The director of Ofgas has already said that all consumers will have the choice of gas in 1998. I think that is right in theory but wrong in practice. For instance, if a company was to apply for a licence for, say, North London, it would fulfil many of the criteria that we have been discussing but the choice for the elderly could be severely restricted and thus it would he quite wrong for one company alone to
504
have to shoulder the burden of supplying the elderly and those who have difficulty in paying their bills while other companies market those more fortunate around them.
The concept of the levy bridges this gap by spreading these costs across all suppliers. I would prefer it if selected marketing did not occur and the levy was not needed, but I do not think that is a practical proposition. I fear that the levy will be needed and my concern is that the Bill as it stands does not make the situation as clear as it should be. It leaves too much to the uncertainty of the behaviour of the regulator. For example, the director general of Ofgas is given discretion to determine what level of excess costs should be regarded as having materially affected a licensee's business and therefore whether a levy should be granted at all. In a competitive market, as we have seen in the industrial sector recently, suppliers' margins may be quite small and this needs to be properly considered. We should also bear in mind when considering the issue that the current regulator has already shown unwillingness to raise an energy efficiency levy for which she feels there was insufficient statutory backing.
The amendment has three objectives. The first is to set out clearly the relevant circumstances where the levy provision should apply inclusion in the statute and also takes the levy outside the regulator's discretion to change the standard licence conditions. Secondly, it would ensure a reasonably prompt reaction on the part of the director general of Ofgas to any request that the levy should be implemented; and, thirdly, it would provide some discretion for the director general as to the amount, and it would make absolutely clear that this provision is not intended as a protection for the inefficient supplier.
If there was less uncertainty about the implementation of the levy, there would indeed be some great benefits. Above all, it would increase the likelihood that customers who need special services would enjoy a choice of supplier. In doing so it would contribute enormously to securing the very choice about which my noble friend Lord Ferrers waxed lyrical on Amendment No. 3. After all, the major deterrent for new gas companies offering to supply these customers is the extra cost of doing so coupled with the uncertainty as to whether these costs could be recovered through the levy mechanism. If we remove this uncertainty, as my amendment seeks to do, we make high cost customers considerably more attractive to serve. I believe that is part of what the Bill seeks to do. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment. The noble Earl put very clearly the case in relation to the levy. It also enables me again to underline my view on this "undue proportion" matter. It seems to me that a firm with a given area might say, "I should like to have a go at competing in this area of the country. I think I can make a go of it and I think that I can make some money". Someone then comes along and says, "Well, you know that there are quite a lot of old people in that area". I want the firm to be able to say that it will not take its decision on a discriminatory basis but that it wants to be a gas supplier which supplies gas on all-fours. But if it turns out that that firm has committed

505
itself to undue cost, since it is providing a public service within the definition of the Bill, it deserves some recompense. That is the concept of the levy.
I like in particular the noble Earl's point about removing uncertainty. Of course any degree of competition involves taking risks. We cannot get rid of risks. It may be that the Minister will tell me that I must look at this peculiar yellow document which contains the licensing conditions and that I do not have to worry. If that is so, all well and good. But it seems to me that the noble Earl is right to say that we want firms to be disabled and pension blind. We want them to compete but we do not want them to end up bankrupt because they have done the right thing when others, in a way, have not. That is why one must be supportive of that line of thought.
Lord Inglewood: This is obviously an important point and it is very much on the same subject matter as the penultimate amendment that we discussed. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for setting out his case at length.
I suspect that I shall not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I must tell him that it is important to look at the yellow document and at Condition 6 which deals with special customer payment claims. That document stretches to five pages and covers many of the points which are germane to this matter. The amendment sets out criteria which the director must use in considering whether a levy should be raised; removes the Secretary of State's veto; and requires a decision as soon as practicable alter an application has been made. We have considered very carefully representations that have been made to us about the criteria and timescale for the director's decision on such a levy under Standard Condition 6.
The purpose of having an economic regulator is precisely to ensure that these sorts of decisions are taken by an independent person with expert knowledge of the industry, and are not subject to political intervention. Condition 6 sets out a clear set of criteria and it will be up to the director to exercise her role in the levy payment arrangements in the light of those criteria and of her statutory duties.
The revised draft condition contains a clear timetable for the decision and detailed criteria to be applied. We believe that these form a more appropriate balance than the necessarily abbreviated description in the amendment. We also consider that the Secretary of State's veto should be retained, as a levy has a clear political component.
I hope that my explanation will have assisted my noble friend, in particular by drawing attention to the new draft conditions, because they go a long way towards meeting many of his anxieties.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I am grateful also for my noble friend's reply. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I shall have more time to read these documents in the future than I have had in the past 24 hours. I must get used to that, having been very spoilt for 10 years being served with lots of briefs at the right time. It is much more difficult trying to do it all oneself.
506
The simple point which I hope that my noble friend has taken on board is that we want there to be not only competition among gas suppliers but competition for every single group of people within the area where licences are granted. That is extremely important.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that he has been inundated already. That does not surprise me because nothing has happened yet. When independent gas suppliers start to look at areas throughout the country, it would be easy to say that, although they have a licence for that area, they will not target the elderly or those who find it difficult to pay. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers would love it to be called, they will cherry pick the good ones and one company will be left under a duty to supply the elderly and those most disadvantaged. That company will then have to absorb the extra costs and the costs of the free service. That is not equal and fair competition. That is the point. I hope that it is covered to my satisfaction in the documents to which my noble friend referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Standard conditions of licences]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("unless")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 53, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 and 118.
We move to the standard conditions that will be applied. I believe that standard conditions should apply to all types of licence holders. In fact, standard conditions apply to gas shippers and gas suppliers, but they do not apply to, and are excluded under the Bill, as regards gas transporters. That seems to be an anomaly. I wonder why that is so. Perhaps my noble friend will explain. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the position to my noble friend. I thank him for proposing the amendment.
The competitive position for a public gas transporter under the new regulation framework is not comparable to that of a gas supplier or gas shipper. A gas supplier, or a gas shipper, will be in equal competition for the same customers with other gas suppliers, or gas shippers. That is the point of introducing competition and we want to ensure, by restricting the director's ability to modify licence conditions in ways which might offer unfair competitive advantage to some players, that such competition takes place on an equal basis.
A public gas transporter, however, will have a monopoly on gas conveyance in his own authorised area. Not only that, but British Gas TransCo will undertake the great majority of gas transportation for the foreseeable future. There is no question of TransCo being equal to other public gas transporters, and there will be numerous special conditions applicable to it.
There will be direct competition between public gas transporters in the creation of new pipeline networks and the conveyance of gas through them. Here, both the director and the Secretary of State are under a duty to secure effective competition under their general duties.

507
The director will be required to bear this general duty in mind when considering modification to a public gas transporter licence.
I hope that my noble friend will now feel that he understands the position underlying the clauses.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for my noble friend's explanation; it certainly helps. However, I believe that we still have a problem. Of course the position of the gas transporter is different from that of the suppliers and producers by the very nature of the pipe system at present. However, competition will increasingly be developed in that area as more people wish to put in their own pipelines as extensions from the existing TransCo system. There is, indeed, a system at Swindon at present. As more such systems develop, there needs to be a degree of certainty in the minds of the existing pipeline company, TransCo, and those who wish to come into the market, that they will all be treated equally.
I come back to the same point regarding equal competition. There needs to be security of supply and equal treatment of the shippers who use that pipeline.
We do not want conditions relaxed, so that a developer asks for tenders for a supply to a new housing development, takes the cheapest supply from a new competitor in the market, and finds that the size of the pipe does not produce enough gas to keep everyone warm and all the systems working in the first sharp cold winter that we have. Those are the kinds of conditions which could be relaxed. That is the point that I am driving at. When I read the Official Report tomorrow, I hope that what my noble friend says will reassure me. Perhaps we could arrange to have a discussion between now and a later stage to make certain that my concerns are met. Unless my noble friend wishes to say something further, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: It may be of assistance to my noble friend if I explain that there will be standard conditions for public gas transporters but that it is right to have more flexibility to take account of the differing characteristics of public gas transporters.
The Earl of Caithness: That is indeed more helpful. We are making a lot of progress. When shall I be able to see those standard conditions?
Lord Inglewood: I am very pleased to tell my noble friend that they are available now.
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the Committee. I was not as well briefed as I should have been. I shall read them. I have more homework to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 12, line 50, at end insert:
("() Standard conditions for gas suppliers shall include a duty on licence holders to ensure that all written material produced by a gas supplier for use by customers or potential customers must be expressed in plain, intelligible language.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that gas suppliers produce written material for customers and potential customers in plain language so that they do not have some of the problems that the Committee has had this evening. It is important that all customers should receive information from competing gas suppliers that is easy to understand. The duty could apply to such written materials as letters, bills, price information, and promotional material. Contracts from gas suppliers are already covered by the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations. The requirement can then be extended to the broader range of materials. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: We agree that it is important that information provided to customers should be readily comprehensible. If I am allowed to introduce a personal aside, it would not necessarily be obvious to the average customer from reading the Bill exactly what is being proposed. Obviously, that is important, particularly in the context of the safety considerations that apply. However, we would expect competition to provide a strong incentive to suppliers to make themselves clearly understood. If they produce leaflets full of incomprehensible jargon, they are unlikely to be very successful in winning and retaining customers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, certain protection is provided by the new regulations on unfair terms contracts. We argue that to go further would involve excessive regulatory intervention. It ought not to be for the director general to tell suppliers how to write their advertisements.
Lord Haskel: I agree entirely with the Minister. The director general writing advertisement copy could bring many gas companies to bankruptcy. At this late stage I do not want to pursue the matter but it is important to have it on the record that material should be written clearly and that people should not be confused. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55A not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Unfair terms in gas supply contracts
. After section 47 of the 1986 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
'Unfair terms in gas supply contracts.
47A.—(1) This section applies to any term in a contract made between a gas supplier and his customers.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any person may bring proceedings for an injunction (in which proceedings he may also apply for an interlocutory injunction) against any gas supplier appearing to him to be using or recommending use of an unfair term in contracts concluded with customers.
(3) An application for an injunction under this section shall not be made unless—

509

(a) the applicant has been or would be adversely affected by any matter to which the application relates, or

(b) the applicant is the Director or the Council, or

(c) the court considers that it is in the public interest for the applicant to make the application.

(4) The court on an application made under this section may grant an injunction on such terms as it thinks fit.
(5) An injunction may relate not only to use of a particular contract term but to any similar term, or a term having like effect, used or recommended for use by any party to the proceedings.
(6) In this section—
"term" means any term or condition including any term or condition in a contract provided under a scheme made under paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to this Act.
"unfair term" has the same meaning as in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994.".").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to Members of the Committee who may have thought that we were about to have a great row on Amendment No. 56. I felt that this was not the time of night to get involved in such matters.
Amendment No. 57 stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and myself. The noble Baroness regrets that another engagement prevented her staying in the Chamber for this amendment. It is an extremely important one, and I thought that at least I should air some of the argument now, although I am fairly certain that we shall want to return to it.
As the Committee is aware, next month the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 come into effect. They are supposed to implement the European directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The directive states that persons or organisations having a legitimate interest under national. law in protecting consumers should be able to take representative legal action to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. That is an easier way of ensuring justice than the complainers having the expense and hassle of taking legal action themselves.
The difficulty with the directive—I blame myself partly—is that the Government gave that role exclusively to the Office of Fair Trading. I and my advisers are convinced that this does not place into English law either the wording or the intention of the directive. Since I am speaking for the Opposition on this matter, I have to admit that I do not have the faintest idea of what happened on that occasion. I do not recall being involved with the matter. I do not know how it got through without my arguing about it or even saying that the regulations would not do. At some point, when I have a little time, I shall find out just where I blundered on all these matters.
'The fact remains that our version of the directive, as we put it in regulations, is flawed. Here, at least in the case of gas, is an opportunity to put the matter right. In the simplest possible terms, the amendment ensures that the powers that the regulations which the Government gave to the OFT to act on the directive would be extended to Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council so far as gas supply contracts are concerned. It will also permit other bodies of a similar nature to bring proceedings provided that the courts thought that it was in the public interest for them to do so.
I believe that this is an immensely important matter. It is not a topic that I want to debate at this hour of the night when we are discussing detailed matters concerned with implementing a European directive. I wanted simply to take this opportunity to place the arguments on record. I do not propose to divide on the amendment at this stage. However, I warn the Chamber that this is not the last that it will hear on the matter. That is partly because I blame myself for bungling the whole thing in the first place. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, perhaps I may be permitted at this late hour to give a preliminary view on what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just said. Notwithstanding the arguments that he has advanced on the right way to implement a directive of this or any other kind emanating from Brussels, I am absolutely certain in my own mind that one should not pick off industries one by one.
I know that there is a great temptation, simply because there is a Gas Bill going through this place or indeed Parliament generally, to do just that. But whatever the answer to the conundrum posed by the noble Lord, it seems to me that it ought to be general and not specific.
Earl Ferrers: This new clause seeks to give the Gas Consumers Council, the director and anyone acting in the public interest, the right to seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of unfair terms. I understand that the Consumers' Association has sought judicial review of the Government's implementation of Article 7 of the Unfair Contract Directive. The matter is therefore now before the courts.
The Government are confident that they have correctly implemented the directive. Regulation 8 of the Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations provides the Director General of Fair Trading with the power to seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of unfair contract terms.
The issue of to whom it is appropriate to grant such a power is one which goes a great deal further than just gas supply. It relates to consumers in general. I agree with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. It is inappropriate to deal with the matter in a piecemeal manner in this way and solely in relation to gas.
We also consider it unnecessary and undesirable to extend that power of the Director General of Fair Trading to seek injunctions to other bodies such as the director, the Gas Consumers Council or anyone acting in the public interest. Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council will be able to liaise with the Office of Fair Trading in the usual way over any relevant consumer complaints. It is undesirable to establish an alternative route by which unfair terms can be challenged. That would cause duplication of the role of the Director General of Fair Trading and possible inconsistencies.
This is not a matter for the Bill. It should be addressed, if at all, in the context of the regulations. It would be anomalous to have different provisions for gas than for other industries.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Earl. I must be extremely careful, bearing in mind his remarks on judicial

511
review. If I say anything which the noble Earl feels is out of order, I hope that he will immediately leap to his feet and stop me.
I must say to him in terms, having read the directive, that it is inconceivable that our regulations incorporate the provisions correctly in English law. I do not seek to bias whoever is taking the decisions on judicial review, but the directive does not stand up for one minute to anybody who has read it. What we have done is simply not right. Let me add, since I have been involved in one or two other attempts to say this sort of thing, that the noble Earl's department has been getting other implementation directives in regulations wrong as well. Those are matters I shall come back to.
I understand the argument raised originally by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and now by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It would be infinitely better for the whole thing to be sorted out once and for all. That is what judicial review may do and that would suit me. On the other hand, if I can reverse the argument, the Gas Bill is the Bill before us. We do not have a Bill on general representations or anything else. This is all we have got. I tend to make the best of a bad job. If the Gas Bill is all I have, then that is the bit I shall try to make a little better.
The noble Lord and the noble Earl are not wrong. There is always a problem of picking off a specific industry. However, we do not have before us a general industry privatisation Bill or anything like that. The Gas Bill is what we are dealing with and I am trying to deal with it. I have made my points, which is what matters to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 59A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of information
.—(1) Section 42 of the Gas Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the following paragraphs shall be substituted.

"(b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual; or

(c) relates to the commercial affairs of any particular business and whose disclosure would prejudice those affairs to an unreasonable degree."

(3) In subsection (2) at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(g) by the Director and consists of information relating to the commercial affairs of a particular business where, in the opinion of the Director, any prejudice to those affairs arising from the disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in making the information available."").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 59A relates to Section 42 of the Gas Act 1986 and suggests various modifications in order to create greater transparency, but at the same time safeguard the interests of individuals and commercial concerns with regard to the disclosure of information. That relates to the amendment proposed for paragraph (b) of Section 42(1) of the 1986 Act. In the case of subsection (2) there is inserted a paragraph which will enable the director to reveal information if, having
512
weighed up the harm that it might do to a specific business, nevertheless he decides that disclosure is beneficial to the public interest. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The wording in the 1986 Act is carefully drafted to ensure a proper balance between the public interest and the commercial and private interests of individuals and businesses.
I believe it is right to allow individuals and businesses to decide whether they are prepared for information relating to their affairs to be disclosed. If it becomes necessary, the Secretary of State has the power under a new subsection (3A), which was inserted by government amendment in another place, by order to modify the scope of the exemptions to the general restriction on the disclosure of information.
The restriction applies only to information obtained under or by virtue of Part I of the 1986 Act, as amended. Information obtained about consumers during the normal course of business by gas companies is covered by the Data Protection Act.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Earl for those comments. I should like to study them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendments of Part III of 1986 Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("the use by gas shippers of') and insert (", or to activities connected with—

(i) the introduction of gas into;

(ii) the taking out of gas from; or

(iii) the use by gas shippers of,").

The noble Earl said: The majority of amendments which are down in my name today and which will he down in the future are very technical amendments. What I propose to do, if I may, is to move them formally. If Members of the Committee wish to ask me about them, they are at liberty to do so. I assure Members of the Committee that I have no intention of bouncing them, but I just think that such a course would be expeditious for the proceedings. They are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause II, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for damage or loss caused by public gas suppliers' construction work
. In Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 to fix 1986 Act (Power of Public Gas Supplies to break up streets, bridges, etc.), after the second "shall" there shall be inserted "as promptly as possible", and after "any" there shall be inserted "loss caused or".").
The noble Baroness said: I regret that I cannot be quite as speedy in moving this amendment because I feel that this is rather an important amendment and I want to give it full attention. Its purpose is to enable businesses to claim compensation for damage or loss caused by public gas suppliers' construction work.
Digging up streets or roads outside small businesses can have a devastating effect on those businesses if the disruption continues for any length of time. Small

513
retailers are especially vulnerable to hazards or barriers which arrive outside their premises. Most of them have only one entrance and making it less accessible can deter potential customers and will certainly curtail window gazing. I need not remind the Committee of the valuable contribution made by small businesses to our economy and to the creation of jobs, but so many of them at the moment are on the edge of viability and the losses caused by the reduction of trading during the roadworks could mean the difference between survival and extinction.
There is an anomaly in that at present a water company has to compensate anyone to whom damage is caused while it is performing its functions as a water company. In fact, compensation amounting to roughly £130 million annually is paid by the water companies in this way. That proves the necessity for this amendment because the disruption is exactly the same as that caused by the water companies and it also illustrates that the calculation of such losses is feasible. It also establishes a precedent, if one is required.
The amendment is supported by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which represents some 200,000 businesses, and by the British Retail Consortium. Both organisations have evidence of difficulties caused to small businesses in the circumstances I have described and they have supplied details of many actual cases where businesses have been pushed over the edge. I had intended to quote those cases but in view of the lateness of the hour I shall leave them for the moment.
An amendment similar to this was proposed during the Report stage of the Bill in another place following discussion between the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Minister. But the amendment was withdrawn at the request of the Minister on the basis of a letter he had received from the chairman of British Gas saying that he would,
"consider whether it might be possible in narrowly defined and extremely exceptional circumstances to make some form of ex-gratia payment".
Later, the Minister admitted that even the ex-gratia payment might not be possible. It is, after all, a discretionary payment which British Gas might or might not choose to pay. That does not seem a satisfactory solution.
I find it very difficult to understand the Government's resistance to this proposal. They have constantly reiterated their belief in the value of small businesses to the economy. They applaud the fact that those businesses are an important element in providing jobs. There is no doubt that businesses are suffering loss as a result of interruptions caused by roadworks. The payments involved would not come from the taxpayer and, indeed, need not come from the gas consumer, in view of the large profits enjoyed by British Gas at the moment.
As I said, the water companies must compensate for their damaging activities, so why not British Gas? The Minister's honourable friend in another place gave examples of businesses which, having been compensated by water companies, were dismayed to find that in similar circumstances British Gas was under no obligation to do
514
the same. I hope that this Committee can now fulfil its function of giving the Government time to think again on the previous answer. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston: Despite the lateness of the hour, perhaps I may say that I regard this as an immensely important amendment. There are two aspects of it which I was hoping that my noble friend would clarify since I read the matter slightly differently. Although she mentioned small firms, the need for compensation does not apply just to them. I assume that it applies to any firm damaged by these activities.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. I concentrated on small businesses because the effect on them is so much more immediate and so dire.
Lord Peston: Nevertheless, as my noble friend says, the provision would apply to all businesses. My reading of the matter is that the responsibility is not to British Gas but to any gas company that digs up the road and generally creates economic disruption. In other words, there is no specific reason why British Gas should be singled out here.
That takes me to what I regard as the most important point of all, which I have argued before. Once we privatise utilities we are dealing with private businesses. Therefore, rights that we would have given to public utilities do not necessarily carry over. I am trying to persuade Members of the Committee all the time that we are now talking of the private sector. Just as any other private firm would not be given the right to disrupt another firm's business in anyway whatsoever—it would have to compensate and there are laws to deal with that—that applies to utilities generally. Since we are discussing British Gas, it applies to that company. I made the point about pylons on another occasion.
One of the problems is that the Government have not faced up to the consequences of privatisation, particularly in the context of competition. It seems that all that is being stated here by my noble friend is a general proposition that if a business engages in activity which is damaging to another business in the sense of this case—namely, that it is made difficult to get into that business's premises or they are made less attractive to customers—they should be liable to compensate. I assume that arbitration would lead to decent outcomes.
My noble friend did not mention this point. If we are discussing work that has to be done because of danger, then clearly it must not be held back. Nonetheless, even in the case of danger, if someone smells gas and the gas supplier digs up the road, and the result causes me, a small retailer, to lose business for a few days, I do not see why I should bear the cost. I did not cause the gas leak; I am just trying to run another business.
I am convinced in my own mind that the line taken by my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady Hilton of Eggardon and by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is the correct one. To put it mildly, I shall he interested in any counter-argument. I am not going to delay for that tonight, but if there is a counter-argument, I

515
am sure that I can produce further arguments. We are now discussing private firms delivering their products. They have to deliver them in a way which is not damaging to other private firms trying to do the same.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thought that was a temptation for me to produce a counter-argument. I have absolutely no such argument to produce on this occasion. It was very refreshing to hear the dulcet tones of the noble Baroness contributing to this debate. She has been very generous in waiting a very long time so to do. On this particular issue, as on so many others, she has hit the nail on the head, and I agree with her every inch of the way.
However, it occurs to me that since the Gas Act 1986 was enacted we had in 1991 the New Roads and Street Works Act which, to a tiny extent, this Bill amends. Therefore, if there is validity in the general point—and I think that there is; the noble Baroness mentioned water and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, almost went so far as to talk about the electricity industry which probably has a bearing on this, as does the telecommunications industry—I suggest that all these matters could be tidied up in the New Roads and Street Works Act.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to give us a little elucidation about the way in which this legislation is being handled. Schedule 4 to the Gas Act 1986 is entitled:
"Power of Public Gas Suppliers to Break Up Streets, Bridges Etc."
But we have a different situation now. We have TransCo and people with transport licences. The gas suppliers merely supply the gas. I would find it confusing if we were to proceed on the basis of amending an Act which is not relevant to the new situation. I am following a point which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made. How is one to interpret the provisions? Should they not apply to transporters of gas and not to public gas suppliers?
Earl Ferrers: I do not blame the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for producing this amendment and for speaking to it in the way that she did. The question of streetworks by utilities, and in particular by public gas transporters, is an important one. Often, we may not appreciate the complex engineering exercise that is necessary to keep a reliable supply of gas available on tap to some 18½ million customers at any one time. Maintaining this network in a safe and effective state requires a great deal of work for which street openings are necessary.
The Government do not think that there should be a general right for automatic compensation for economic loss arising from streetworks. We believe that such a general right would be inappropriate for two reasons. The first is that of practicality. There would be a great risk of inefficiency from having to process large numbers of claims arising from the extensive streetworks which a company like British Gas needs to execute, and a concern that money spent in this area will inevitably feed through to the cost of gas.
The second reason relates to the general principle of how streets are used. Successive governments have always taken the view that businesses should not have a right in law to any given level of passing trade and that traders must take the risk of loss due to temporary
516
disruption of traffic flows along with all the other risks of running a business. If that principle is not accepted, one wonders where one would stop. As well as utilities' works, streets are resurfaced, closed or made one-way; and the emergency services can affect the traffic, too. One can go on for quite some time, listing all the different permutations of how businesses can be affected.
However, I recognise that the legal position, which the Government are not minded to alter, could bear heavily on small businesses on the very rare occasions when long-term and substantial disruption takes place. There comes a point when the general interest in utilities being able to operate streetworks efficiently and the general principles I have described could lead to harsh costs falling on such a small business.
It was for that reason that the Minister for Industry and Energy asked the chairman of British Gas what further he could do to assist. The chairman informed my right honourable friend that TransCo is revising its existing procedures to improve communication and co-operation with owners of commercial premises. British Gas will discuss with individual business owners issues including vehicular access, customer access, special notices and any special requirements. Beyond this, and subject to certain conditions, British Gas has undertaken that in those exceptional cases where small businesses suffer severe and clearly established loss of business over a prolonged period as a direct result of streetworks carried out by British Gas or its agents, British Gas will give sympathetic consideration to claims in respect of financial loss on an ex gratia basis.
Since the discussions in Committee in another place, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred, British Gas has agreed to set up a compensation scheme for small firms. That was put on the record in another place at Report stage. My right honourable friend in another place has put on record the precise terms of this undertaking. On those terms, I hope that the noble Baroness can feel satisfied that something is being done to help small firms. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Schedule 3 amends the words in the old Act so that it refers to public gas transporters.
The Earl of Caithness: I had not expected to intervene on this amendment. However, I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend's reply. He said that one of the reasons for not accepting it was the cost of processing claims. This is now a private industry. It is not the Government but a private industry that must bear the cost in a fair and equal competitive market. We must let the industry face up to the real world. I believe that the noble Baroness has a point.
I should like to press my noble friend on two areas. First, given the strong arguments that he has adduced, why do we have the present situation for water? He did not answer that particular point. The noble Baroness made a convincing case to make the same rule for water apply to gas companies. Secondly, we will have more competition in the pipeline industry. We already have a separate pipeline system in Swindon. As developments take place around the country which serve both residential and commercial properties, it will not just be TransCo that provides the pipeline system. It is all very well for British Gas to say this, that or the other. It does not apply to all the

517
players in the market. Now that the monopoly has been broken, if that is the answer and what everybody supports, I feel that added strength is given to the argument of the noble Baroness.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that he was not convinced by what I had said. I am disappointed. I thought that I was wholly convincing. However, my noble friend is enormously stubborn sometimes in his reception of ideas. I will try to explain the position to him. He said that now British Gas was privatised, it was a private company. I say to my noble friend that that has nothing to do with it. We are talking about what happens when streets are dug up. I tried to explain to the Committee that if British Gas was told that if it dug up a street it would have to inquire of everyone in the street who would be disaffected, and by how much, it would result in quite a large exercise in processing documents and paying people.
My noble friend says that that is different now because British Gas has been privatised. That is not so. I do not know where my noble friend lives. Perhaps he lives in a very esoteric place. The whole area in which I live has been disrupted recently because of the installation of fibre-optic cable. I do not know whether everyone has received compensation, but I have not. Perhaps I was not sensible enough to apply for it. One starts with water. It was decided to resurface my particular street a short while ago, and the whole area was closed. Should one say that everyone should get out their claim forms and claim for that? I do not believe that to be realistic.
My noble friend also said that the noble Baroness Lady Nicol had a point. I agree with him. I said that she had a point, and I told her what my right honourable friend the Minister for Energy had said in another place. He has spoken to British Gas who have made some provisions. I hope that I have satisfied both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in which case that will be two birds with one shot, and both in the opposite direction.
The Earl of Caithness: What my noble friend says makes me even more stubborn. There is a huge difference. If it was a public company owned by the Government, it would be taxpayer's money that would be used to pay compensation. In this case it is private sector money, and therein lies the difference. It is now in competition with other potential transporters of gas. The situation is dramatically different. Of course, one is talking about digging up streets. I have to say to my noble friend that if he thinks that I am stubborn, I find his arguments even less convincing on that second attempt.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I shall intervene only briefly, but I am still disturbed that the Minister continues to refer to British Gas. We are no longer discussing British Gas. We are now discussing the potentially competitive privatised gas industry. British Gas will have no special role once the Bill becomes law. The chairman of British Gas can talk about handing out money, but we are not discussing that any more. We are discussing the
518
principles of a competitive private industry. Assuming the Government do not fall within the next few days, the Bill will become law. We must forget about British Gas, and think of it as just another rather good firm. Okay, but it is just another firm.
Earl Ferrers: I accept the noble Lord's rebuke. It is what one describes as a slip of the tongue. I should have made it clear that it was any gas transporter, and not just British Gas, which is affected.
Baroness Nicol: My noble friend is right. The gas industry has been freed from the constraints of public ownership with much acclaim all round. It must be prepared to accept the responsibility that goes with that freedom. That includes being responsible for the loss and damage that it causes and for paying up in the way that any other commercial organisation must pay up.
I am disappointed that all the answers given by the Minister were those given in another place. He has added nothing new. The letter from British Gas is the one that is already being discussed with the British Retail Consortium and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. They were totally dissatisfied with that as a solution. It is because of that continuing dissatisfaction that I felt that I could bring the amendment forward tonight.
We should have further discussion on this issue with the Government to see whether there is not some way in which we can move forward. The Minister has not answered why it can work for water and not for the gas industry. I do not know whether he has an answer he wants to give before I decide what to do with the amendment. It seems to me that the two cases are a parallel. On the question of road works the matter is different because the thing is over and done with in two or three days at the most, and it is in the public sector and for the general good.
My noble friend Lord Peston is right. When the stand was taken that no compensation could be paid by the gas industry, it was then a publicly owned corporation. We were all expected to shoulder the burdens of it, because we all shared the benefits. That has changed completely. It is now open to competition and to taking on its responsibilities. Does the Minister want to answer the question as to why water is different before I decide what to do with the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: That is fair. I did not answer the question about water, and I apologise for that. The noble Baroness did, incidentally, talk about British Gas. After my rebuke by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I grovelled with an apology and said that the provision applied to all privatised gas companies. Of course TransCo will retain a de facto monopoly in the transportation of gas in most of the country for some time. Of course, the provision would apply to any transporter.
Water, of course, is different. The arrangements in respect of street works by water companies are anomalous. None of the other utilities, local authorities, highway authorities, or any other person with rights to break or close streets is subject to a requirement to pay compensation for economic loss to businesses which are affected by the works. The requirement in water appears

519
to have arisen following judicial interpretation of disputed wording in old legislation, which was subsequently clarified in a consolidation Act.
I should add that the compensation provisions in water go wider than street works, and include compensation for interfering with a person's right to enjoyment of his own land where economic loss is clearly appropriate. The existence of a provision for compensation in respect of street works by water companies, whose origin is unclear, is not a justification for introducing an inappropriate obligation in the case of gas, but I recognise that the Committee is concerned about this point.
The noble Baroness made a number of good points and I wish to consider all that has been said before the next stage of the Bill. Obviously, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what my conclusions will be but I shall consider what has been said.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider what has been said today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Acquisition of rights to use gas processing facilities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 15, line 25, leave out from ("facility") to ("and") in line 26 and insert ("for the purposes of any business carried on by him;").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to,
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 63:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Duty of Director to advise etc
("It shall be the duty of the Director General of Gas Supply, where either he considers it expedient or he is requested by the Secretary of State to do so, to give information, advice and assistance to the Secretary of State with respect to any matter in respect of which any function of the Secretary of State under this Act is exercisable.").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 are technical amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 16, line 43, leave out from second ("any") to ("before") in line 44 and insert ("public general Act passed").
Page 17, line 6, at end insert:
("(2A) The Secretary of State may by order make such consequential modifications of any provision contained in any local Act passed, or in subordinate legislation made, before the appointed day as appear to him necessary or expedient.").
Page 17, line 7, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)").
The noble Earl said: Thaese are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that we have gone far enough. Indeed, I am not sure that we have not gone too far. There are other amendments that we wish to table before the next stage of the Bill and therefore, if it meets with the approval of the Committee, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Psychiatric Hospitals: Survey Report
  Psychiatric Hospitals: Survey Report
  Future Medical Technology and the NHS
  Future Medical Technology and the NHS
  Sail-Training Scheme: Renaissance Maritime Charitable Trust
  Sail-Training Scheme: Renaissance Maritime Charitable Trust
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  G7 Meeting
  G7 Meeting
  Domestic Violence: Victim Support Services
  Domestic Violence: Victim Support Services
  Domestic Violence: Women Sentenced for Murder
  Domestic Violence: Women Sentenced for Murder
  Domestic Violence: Studies and Reports
  Domestic Violence: Studies and Reports
  Mr. Kani Yilmaz
  Mr. Kani Yilmaz
  Sentenced Prisoners: Fine Defaulters
  Sentenced Prisoners: Fine Defaulters
  EC's Fourth Framework Programme
  EC's Fourth Framework Programme
  European Convention on Human Rights: Provisional Files
  European Convention on Human Rights: Provisional Files
  Local Authorities: Budgets
  Local Authorities: Budgets
  Local Government: Reviews
  Local Government: Reviews
  Planning Appeals: Conduct Guidance
  Planning Appeals: Conduct Guidance